1941-03-03

PRIVILEGE-MR. COLDWELL REFERENCE TO EDITORIAL IN OTTAWA EVENING CITIZEN OF MARCH 1

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to-day on a matter of personal privilege. It is, I may say, the first time in my seventeen years of membership in various public bodies that I have ever done so.
On Saturday last, March 1, the Ottawa Citizen devoted most of its editorial page to explanations of its attitude and to bitter personal attacks upon me in my capacity as a member of this house.
The first paragraph to which I wish to draw attention appears in the leading editorial on page 32 of the Evening Citizen of March 1. It states:
For saying that the lads after this war, when they come home from overseas, "may know better where to shoot than Canadian veterans did in the years of debt and privation after the last war," the Citizen has been accused in the House of Commons of inciting men in uniform when they return from overseas to use force to obtain what they were after. This twisting of the Citizen's editorial, done by the C.C.F. member for Rosetown-Biggar, M. J. Caldwell, led Mr. Lapointe to say last Thursday that he agreed with Mr. Coldwell. Mr. Lapointe said:
My honourable friend (Mr. Coldwell) sent me that article, not very long ago. It was a subversive article which was published by the Ottawa Citizen on that date, and I may tell him that they will have to answer for it before the courts of the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am accused of dishonesty in this house by twisting the editorial in question and thus leading the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to say that he agreed with me. As a member of this house, as the acting house leader of this group, the accusation thus made is a grave reflection upon my personal integrity.
To say that I twisted the editorial is a charge which the editor of The Citizen makes falsely in an attempt to escape the consequences of his written word. If there has been any twisting, surely it has been on the part of the Citizen, which is trying to wriggle out of the position in which it finds itself.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) speaking also in this house last Thursday, said:
I read the article and I thought it was more than a borderline case; it seemed to me that it was really an incitement to force.
The leader of the opposition, therefore, placed the same interpretation upon the article as scores of Citizen readers also did.

Privilege-Mr. Coldwell
The article published on January 11 was the subject of press comment in other parts of the dominion. I have, for example, an article appearing in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of February 18, commenting adversely upon it.
During all this time no explanation, modification or withdrawal of the words appeared. To my mind, no other interpretation could be placed upon an editorial, the first sentence of which was:
The real business of the Bren gun is, of course, to kill-
-and the last sentence of which was:
-When the lads come home from overseas, after some years of service at the real business end of the Bren gun, they may know better where to shoot than Canadian veterans did in the years of debt and privation after the last war.
There appeared to be no possibility of misunderstanding such plain and simple English. I therefore, Mr. Speaker, under the rules protecting members of this house against libellous accusation, bring this to your attention. I do not propose to move for the attendance of the editor of the paper in question at the bar of this house, as I am advised I have the right to do; for undoubtedly the unfounded charge of twisting the editorial in question is a false and malicious accusation of personal dishonesty which infringes upon the rights of members of parliament.
On the same page, 32, of the Evening Citizen, there also appears a reprint of an editorial which appeared in the Citizen of January 22, 1941, and which was a scurrilous attack on my personal motives in public life. Its caption is, "Mr. Coldwell in good company." This reprint was introduced with the following words:
The Citizen's editorial on "The Business End of the Bren" (reproduced in an adjoining column on this page) appeared originally last January 11. The Minister of Justice, Mr. Lapointe, stated in response to a speech by Mr. Coldwell, socialist leader in the house, last Thursday:
"My hon. friend (Mr. Coldwell) criticized the inaction of the department with respect to the article in the Ottawa Citizen. My hon. friend sent me that article, not very long ago."
"Not very long ago" would perhaps mean subsequent to the publication of the following editorial in the Citizen on January 22, with reference to some of Mr. Coldwell's recent political activities.
The suggestion is made that I drew the attention of the Minister of Justice to the Bren editorial of January 11, subsequent to January 22, and from motives of revenge because of the bitter personal attack made upon me by the Citizen on the latter date. Again they accuse me of using improperly my influence as a member of this house to seek
vengeance against the writer of the editorial in question.
Had I been governed by such motives I would not have criticized the suspension of the Canadian Tribune, which assailed me and our movement in the very last issue which I had read prior to making my speech last Thursday. Indeed, as reference to Hansard will show, in drawing the Citizen editorial to the attention of the minister I was endeavouring to secure a change in the regulations by requesting absolute impartiality in, their administration. To infer that I was actuated by motives of revenge is a scandalous breach of the privileges of this house. It is obviously false; for the editorial appeared on January 11, and I drew it to the attention of the minister by letter dated January 13-which he acknowledged personally on January 18- nine days before the Citizen's attack on myself, which appeared on January 22. Thus my action was entirely unconnected with the Citizen's attack on my personal motives and integrity.
My object in raising the matter on Thursday last was not to secure revenge, or even to force the suspension or the prosecution of the Ottawa Citizen, but merely to compare the seizure of a pamphlet consisting mainly of extracts from speeches made in this house by the hon. member for North Battleford, and the suspension of a paper with a small circulation, the Canadian Tribune, with what I considered to be the inactivity of the department in relation to statements made by a widely-read Ottawa daily. The concluding words of my speech criticizing the defence of Canada regulations in several particulars clearly defined both my purpose and intention when I said:
If we are going to have regulations let them be administered impartially, without regard to who breaks the regulations. Then we shall feel that at least an attempt at justice is being made.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared, ,as all men in public life must be, for editorial comment and criticism by newspapers that disagree with my views. But imputing unworthy motives goes beyond fair and proper comment.
In view of the statement I have just made I would expect that the Ottawa Citizen will give to it tbs same publicity which it gave to its unwarranted insinuations last Saturday.



EXPORT OF GAME


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to control the export of game.
Export of Game
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CRERAR:: The explanation of this
proposed measure is quite simple. Under our constitution the provinces have control over game within their own jurisdictions but they have not control over the export of game from one province to another. Difficulties have arisen in the control within certain provinces of game, especially fur-bearing animals illegally taken within the province, that cannot be disposed of within the province but are taken to another province and disposed of there. The measure seeks to provide remedies for that condition of affairs.
The bill is the outcome of discussions, going back over several years, between provincial and federal game officers. It provides that the legislation shall be brought into effect in any province on proclamation. All the provinces with the exception of Prince Edward Island have signified their approval; indeed several of them have asked for the passage of such legislation as is proposed by the present bill. Prince Edward Island raises no objection, but the government authorities there scarcely think it is required so far as that province is concerned.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Does the bill follow the principle of prohibition, or only supervision?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It really introduces the
principle of prohibition so far as furs illegally taken are concerned.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



CANADIAN ARMY-RECRUITING, TRAINING AND COMMISSIONING OF OFFICERS

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	(a) How many men have received training under the 30-day plan; (b) were the men so trained given an opportunity to enlist for overseas service; (c) how many of said trainees have volunteered for overseas service?
2.	Since the announcement of policy of the Minister of National Defence, to the effect that, in future, commissioned officers would be taken from the ranks, (a) how many officers have been enlisted in the Canadian forces; (b) how many of these so enlisted have been taken from the ranks?
3.	How many, (a) officers; (b) warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks were enlisted in reserve units as of February 1, 1941; (c) has an effort been made to ascertain the numbers on the strength of the reserve units (i) officers; (ii) warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks who are prepared to enlist for overseas service?
4.	Have calls for reinforcements (a) officers;
(b)	warrant officers, non-commissioned officers
l Mr. Crerar.f
and other ranks been made since December 1, 1940, upon the following reserve units: Queen's Own Rifles of Canada; Toronto Scottish Regiment; Toronto Regiment of Royal Grenadiers; the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry; Irish Regiment of Canada; (c) what were the results with respect to each of said units?
5.	Will the Minister of National Defence outline the methods of recruiting, (a) active army; (b) reserve units; (c) veterans' guard?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	(a) 81,986; (b) The names of those who were willing to enlist were ascertained; (c) Number of recruits of 1st and 2nd training periods who expressed a willingness to volunteer for overseas service is 13,736. Returns covering 3rd period not as yet received. Actual enlistments from said recruits not yet known.
2.	(a) 581;	(b)	344. The difference is
accounted for by appointments in such of the specialist services as engineers, signals, Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, medicals, dentals and chaplain services.
3.	(On strength January 31, 1941): (a) 7,881;
(b)	183,015; (c) yes.
4.	Toronto Scottish Regiment; (a) Yes; Ob) No; (c) All calls have been met.
Royal Regiment of Canada, previously designated the Royal Regiment of Toronto Grenadiers.
(a)	Yes.
(b)	No.
(c)	All calls have been met.
Queens Own Rifles of Canada
Royal Hamilton Light Infantry
Irish Regiment of Canada.
(a)	No.
(b)	No.
(c)	See answer to (a) and (b) next above.
5.	Active Army
When a complete unit is required, an active unit is authorized to be mobilized from a suitable existing reserve unit, and the mobilized active unit will consist of those who volunteer and are accepted1 for service in active formations and units of the Canadian army, which includes service in and beyond Canada. Reinforcements for units of the active army are generally secured by a call on their counterparts, when there are such, in the reserve army. If not sufficient are secured, or when reinforcements are required for units which have no such counterpart, quotas are allotted to districts which call upon reserve units in the districts to supply this personnel. Should these reserve units not be able to supply sufficient personnel in time, the personnel is drawn from those not in reserve units who offer their services, and these are recruited through the district depots.
At times it is necessary to mobilize a special type of unit for which there is no counterpart in the reserve army and in such cases

Questions
the district which contains the particular type of personnel required is authorized to raise the necessary numbers.
In addition, recruiting of specialists and tradesmen is continuous, as generally there are vacancies for these in technical units. These, also, are obtained through the distriot depots.
Reserve Army
Units in the reserve army recruit the necessary personnel up to the authorized establishment by enlisting applicants with the necessary qualifications at their orderly rooms in various armouries throughout the country.
Veterans' Guard
There are two kinds of veterans' companies: (a) Active; (b) Reserve.
The Officers Commanding the active companies throughout the country recruit qualified veterans up to their various establishments.
The method of recruiting for the reserve veterans' guard is similar to that of the reserve army.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MONTREAL TERMINAL

Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	What was the total cost of work done on the C.N.R. Montreal terminal during: (a) the three months' period ending March 31, 1940; (b) the three months' period ending June 30, 1940;	(c) the three months' period ending
September 30, 1940;	(d) the three months'
period ending December 31, 1940; (e) -the one month period ending January 31, 1941?
2.	Of the above amounts, how much was paid during each period for steel and other materials imported from the United States?
3.	If work has ceased on the Montreal terminal will it be resumed during the war?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Work on the C.N.R. Montreal terminals was resumed in 1939 under a modified programme designed to meet the immediate requirements of the railway. Detailed information as to work performed during the last calendar year, and cumulative expenditures to December 31, 1940, will be tabled in parliament shortly, as required by the Canadian National Railway Montreal Terminals Act of 1929.
2.	Due to the fact that the bulk of the work is being carried out under contract, the prices covering not only materials, but manufacture, fabrication and erection on the sites, the railway is not in possession of information as to amounts paid for steel and other materials imported from the United States.
3.	Construction on this project has not been suspended.



DEBERT, N.S., AIRPORT

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: How many tons of coal have been purchased for use at the Debert airport and military camp, stating the quantity, price per ton delivered and grades, the total amounts paid or payable to each person or firm supplying such coal with unit prices delivered; also total cost of all coal so purchased?


Mr. HOWE:: Purchases of Coal-Debert Military Camp Purchased by-Contractor	Grades	Total
Munitions and Supply, local pur. agent-
Wilson Coal Co., Truro, N.S	No. 5 shaft, bit. screened (bagged);
Inverness, bit. screened (loose);
Springhill, bit. screened (bagged and loose); Bit. screened coal (bagged); Coal, bit. screened;
Bayview bit. screened; Bras D'Or bit. screened; Springhill screened (bagged)	$ 9,832 10
Munitions and Supply, local pur. agent-
Crystal Spring Ltd., Truro, N.S	Drummond bit. screened	 225	00
Munitions and Supply, local pur. agent-
S. Cunard & Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S	Springhill screened	 3	15
Munitions and Supply, Ottawa-
W. G. Rockwell, Truro, N.S	Dominion li lump; Bras D'Or mine
run	 74,013	45
Munitions and Supply, Ottawa and local purchasing agent-
Wilson Coal Co., Truro, N.S	Acadia slack; Milford (Pictou) bit.
egg; Milford bit. egg; coke		4,598	50
Total tonnage for military camp	 8,824i tons
Total tonnage for airport	 640 tons
Total amount paid for coal, delivered, military camp	$	84,073 70
Total amount paid for coal, delivered, airport	 4,598 50
Re unit prices, please see minister's statement on page 461 of Hansard.
Questions



NATIONAL REGISTRATION-PROSECUTIONS AND PENALTIES

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many prosecutions have taken place for failure to register under the national registration scheme?
2.	In how many cases have the penalties imposed on conviction been remitted?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	177 prosecutions conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the provinces which are policed by them; no information with respect to prosecutions in provinces which maintain their own police forces.
2.	Two of the above cases.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL-JAPAN

Mr. REID:: 1.	Have any restrictions or regulations been put into effect by the foreign exchange control board in connection with Canadian funds or money to Japan, similar to that in effect to other countries?
2.	If so, when were any such restrictions or regulations put into effect?
3.	From January 1, 1940, and up to the time any such regulations or restrictions were made effective, what amounts of Canadian funds, moneys or credits were exchanged, bought or transferred into or for transference to Japan?
4.	Have any requests been made since the regulations (if any), were made effective for the transference of credits, funds or moneys to Japan?
5.	If so, (a) how many of such requests; (b) what number of these were granted; (c) the total value of the requests so granted or allowed; (a) the reasons given for the requests made?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	The foreign exchange control order and the regulations of the foreign exchange control board apply to remittances to Japan in the same manner as remittances to other countries. With the exception of countries in the sterling area and countries of continental Europe, remittances to all foreign countries are on the same basis.
2.	The foreign exchange control order came into effect on September 16, 1939. Since then there have been some amendments to the order and various regulations of the board but none of these refer specifically to Japan as distinct from otheT countries.
3.	Answered by Nos 1 and 2.
4.	Requests have been made by residents of Canada to make remittances to Japan from time to time since the inauguration of foreign exchange control in the same manner as requests have been made for remittances to other foreign countries.
[Mr. HoweJ
5.	With respect to (a), (b) and (c), no figures are available. With respect to (d), the reasons given for the requests are the usual ones, e.g., payment for imports, payment for services, remittance of interest and dividends, etc.



PURCHASE OF MOTOR VESSEL &quot;TERRUS&quot;

Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	From whom did the government purchase the motor vessel Terrus which was registered at the port of Saint John on May 28, 1940, under the new name of General MacDonald?
2.	How much did the government pay for this vessel?
3.	After the vessel was purchased, (a) were the repairs and improvements made on it; (b) were tenders called for these repairs and improvements; (c) what did these repairs and improvements cost; (d) when were these repairs and improvements made?
4.	When was this vessel first put in commission by the government?
5.	After the vessel was put in commission, (a) were further repairs made to it; (b) how often has it been repaired since; (c) who made these repairs; (d) how much did they cost?
6.	What is the total cost of repairs and improvements to date?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Frank Leslie Anderson, Saint John, New Brunswick.
2.	$4,100.
3.	(a) Yes.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	$5,663. After the contract was let for this work, it was found that supplementary repairs were necessary, amounting to $2,645 and $357. This additional work was awarded to the same contractor without tenders being called.
(d)	Approximately April 1, 1940.
4.	June 2, 1940.
5.	(a) Yes.
(b)	Twice.
(c)	J. Fred Williamson Limited, Saint John, New Brunswick, and Silvers Agency, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
(d)	$8,495.
6.	$21,260.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-CONTRACTS AWARDED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

['1.\tJas. A. McCowan, Summerberry, Sask.\n2.\tUpon recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture.']
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: What was the total amount of contracts awarded in British Columbia, by the Department of Munitions and Supply, since January 1, 1939, to date, as follows: (a) seaplane bases, including purchase of property; (b) aeroplane bases, including purchase of property; (c) shipbuilding and repairs; (d) shells and ammunition of all kinds; (e) tools and accessories; If'

Questions
minerals and mineral products; (g) lumber and forest products; (h) provisions of all kinds, including canned and fresh fish; (i) shoes and clothing, and (j) any other contracts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a blanket question
whioh will involve a tremendous amount of research and typing, and it is of a kind that we have declined to answer previously. If my bon. friend could make his question more specific we should be glad to answer, but in its present form it would involve bringing down every contract that has been placed in British Columbia.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, the minister stated last Friday that if anyone wanted information about contracts from his department he would be glad to bring it down. I can understand the difficulty the minister has suggested about the question in its present form-


Olof Hanson: Might I ask the minister to give the total expenditure of the department in British Columbia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to give my lion. friend that in some detail. But his question as it stands asks for so many documents and details that I do not think we could have it ready in time for this session. We can give without much trouble the information for which he has now asked. It is not that I object to giving the information; it is simply the amount of mechanical work it involves.


Georges Parent: Dropped.


Olof Hanson: Well, if I could get the information suggested by the minister-


Georges Parent: Stand.



Mr. WRIGHT:: 1.	From whom was the site for the Dafoe air training field purchased?
2.	What was the total acreage purchased?
3.	What was the total price paid?
4.	Has a suitable water supply for this camp been found?
5.	If so, at what distance?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	T. H. Held, H. H. Kirchoff, W. J. Rossiter.
2.	640 acres.
3.	$11,810.
4.	Suitable water supply available but requires treatment.
5.	Water supply located on aerodrome property.


STORAGE OF WHEAT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA ELEVATORS
Mr. REID:: 1.	What quantity of wheat is being held or stored in each of the elevators at Vancouver, New Westminster, Prince Rupert and Victoria?
2.	Is the government bearing any of the costs on the storage of such wheat?
3.	If so, what costs are being incurred, and what was the amount of same up to the end of January, 1941?
4.	What is the monthly cost for the storage of wheat in these elevators?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Stocks of wheat in store in elevators at Vancouver, New Westminster, Prince Rupert and Victoria as at February 20, 1941: Vancouver, 17,290,484 bushels; New Westminster, 682,342 bushels; Prince Rupert, 1,208,179 bushels; Victoria, 893,772 bushels.
2.	Yes-on wheat stored by the Canadian Wheat Board.
3.	Storage and drying charges. Accrued storage charges are not available at January 31, 1941. At February 15, 1941, they were as follows: Storage, $557,609.19; drying charges, $9,674.31.
4.	For all elevators at Vancouver, New Westminster and Victoria-l/60th of one cent per bushel per day. For Prince Rupert- l/120th of one cent per bushel per day (special arrangement).


WHEAT BOARD ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybura):: 1.	What is the personnel of the advisory committee of the wheat board?
2.	Which members represent producers organizations?
3.	What organizations do they represent?
4.	What producers organizations were asked to make recommendations, whom did they recommend and were these recommendations accepted ?
5.	Were any other organizations asked to make recommendations? If so, whom did they recommend?
6.	How many meetings have been held by the advisory committee, and how many reports have been submitted to, (a) the wheat board; (b) the Minister of Trade and Commerce?
7.	What emoluments, by way of travelling expenses, etc., have been paid to each member of the advisory committee to the wheat board?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board:
Vancouver-Mr. Fred H. Clendenning, Vancouver, representing Vancouver grain and shipping interests.
Alberta-Lew Hutchinson, Duhamel, Alta, (chairman Alberta wheat pool), Alberta pro-
Questions

ducers. Mr. Paul Farnalls, Halkirk, Alta, (president Western Union of Municipalities), Alberta producers.
Saskatchewan-J. H. Wesson (president Saskatchewan Co-op. Wheat Producers), Saskatchewan producers. J. A. McCowan, Sum-merberry, Sask., Saskatchewan producers.
Manitoba-D. G. McKenzie (first vicepresident United Grain Growers Ltd., Winnipeg) , Manitoba producers.
Ontario-Fred Pettypiece, Auld, Ont., Ontario producers.
Quebec-Rosario Messier, Contrecoeur, Que., consumers; A. C. Reid (Western Grain Company), Winnipeg, line elevators; D. A. Campbell (former president St. Lawrence Flour Mills Co.), Toronto, millers; R. C. Reece, K. B. Stoddart & Co., Winnipeg, exporters.
2.	Answered by question 1.
3.	Answered by question 1.
7.	Honorarium Subsistence Travelling	TotalCampbell, D. A	
$ ....	$380.00	$654.65	$1,034.65Clendenning, F. II	
210.00	210.00	207.95	627.95Farnalls, Paul	
420.00	420.00	489.25	1,329.25Hutchinson, Lew	
310.00	310.00	358.71	978.71McCowan, J. A	
290.00	290.00	146.75	726.75McKenzie, D. G	
170.00	7.00	....	177.00Messier, R	120.00	407.50	64790Pettypiece, Fred	320.00	387.75	1,027.75Reece, R. C	160.00Wesson, J. H	
150.00	150.00	149,35	44935
Note: Mr. Campbell does not take his honorarium; Mr. Clendenning's travelling expenses do not include railroad fares as he travels on a pass; Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Reece draw honorariums only, although Mr. McKenzie had one small expense item for one of the meetings; Mr. Reid draws neither honorarium nor expenses.
4.	None, except informally.
5.	No.
6.	Six meetings as follows: August 26 and
27, 1940; September 30 and October 1, 1940; November 18 and 19, 1940; December 18 and 19, 1940; January 13, 14 and 15,	1941;
February 17, 18 and 19, 1941.
Reports-Minutes and a report of meeting for August, September and November were furnished; minutes only of the December meeting were furnished, as that meeting dealt with recommendations for the 1940-41 wheat policy, which were held over for further deliberation at the following meeting; minutes for the January meeting, together with the recommendations with respect to said policy were furnished; report of meeting of February was furnished, but the minutes will not be submitted until they are approved by the committee at its next meeting.


INCOME TAX-WORKING CAPITAL AND RESERVES OF COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: 1.	Has the income tax branch of the Department of National Revenue indicated its intention of treating as income any moneys retained by cooperative organizations as working capital or reserves?
2.	Has any regulation or interpretation been issued to this effect?
3.	If so, will this policy be retroactive and to what date?
4.	Would the government indicate the purpose and intent of such a policy?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.
4.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.


BAIE DES SABLES, QUE., WHARF
Mr. ROY:: 1.	What happened to the materials for which a sum of $14,332.50, representing 50 per cent of their value, was paid by the government under the terms of the contract awarded in 1939 to Bertrand and Brother, L'Orignal, Ontario, for the construction of a wharf at Baie des Sables, Matane county?
2.	Has the government received a part of these materials or been compensated or reimbursed for them?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: This material has been taken over by the Department of Public WTorks and used in connection with various works carried out by the department in the province of Quebec.

Questions


LANCASTER MILITARY HOSPITAL
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What was the cost of the annex to Lancaster military hospital at West Saint John?
2.	What was the cost of the kitchen added to Lancaster military hospital?
3.	How will the kitchen be connected to the hospital?
4.	If by a tunnel, what is the estimated cost of the tunnel?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	$85,904.50.
2.	No kitchen added to Lancaster hospital. However, two small rooms were incorporated into the kitchen layout, one for vegetable preparation and one for maids' dining room.
The cost of preparing these rooms is not available as work carried out partially under utility staff. Additional equipment was added, however, to the main kitchen at a cost of $2,073.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
If questions No. 3 and 4 are-How will food be transferred from the main kitchen in Lancaster hospital to the annex pavilion across the road?-The answer is, by truck in insulated containers.


ISOLATION HOSPITAL, MILITARY DISTRICT NO. 7
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	W'hat was the cost of the isolation hospital built in connection with military district No. 7 at Saint John, New Brunswick?
2.	How many beds are there in this hospital?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	No information re isolation hospital built in connection with military district No. 7.
Isolation hospital in connection with quarantine services, Saint John, N.B., now under construction. Contract price, $40,838-awarded by Department of Public Works.
2.	Number of beds for patients-seven (7), together with living quarters for two nurses and cook.


SAINT JOHN HARBOUR-FLOATING CRANE
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Has the harbour commission at Saint John a floating crane under rental?
2.	If so, who owns this crane?
3.	How much rental does the harbour commission of Saint John pay for its use?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The following information has been furnished by the National Harbours Board, successors to the former Saint John harbour commissioners:
1.	No. The national harbours board owns and operates a floating crane at Saint John.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


FOUR-MONTHS TRAINING PERIOD-POSTPONEMENT FOR FARMERS' SONS
Mr. HATFIELD:: Will the government consider the exemption of farmers' sons for the next two 4-month training periods and call them up for the period after the harvest?


Mr. RALSTON:: As announced by the
Prime Minister, in principle there will be no exemptions, particularly in view of the limited age groups affected; but consideration is being given by the Departments of National War Services and National Defence to the feasibility of postponements where necessary to meet the requirements of essential seasonal occupations.


WAR MATERIALS-STAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY PLANT, DARTMOUTH, N.S.
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	W'as a survey or investigation made by the Department of Munitions and Supply or the Department of National Defence, in connection with the plant known as Star Manufacturing Company, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, with a view to utilizing same for the manufacture of shells, munitions or other war materials?
2.	If so, on what date, by whom and with what result?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Inspection of the Star Manufacturing Works Limited, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, was made by Colonel G. G. J. Ball, mechanical engineer, M.D. 6, of the Department of National Defence on March 18 and 19, 1937. The plant was again inspected by Colonel G. Ogilvie, Colonel G. G. J. Ball, and Major Bishop of the Department of National Defence on July 28, 1937. Inspection was made of the plant on August 12, 1940 by Mr. W. O. McDowell of the Department of Munitions and Supply.
The company is considered capable of supplying for war-time requirements bolts, nuts, rivets, ship's hardware, etc.
So far it has not been considered advisable to utilize this plant for the manufacture of shells or munitions.


CLASS &quot;c&quot; INTERNEES
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How many class "C" internees were transferred from Great Britain during 1940?
2.	How many have been released?
3.	How many have been returned to Great Britain?
4.	How many British officials are in Canada in connection with releasing class "C" internees?
5.	Are class "C" internees detained under conditions similar to those for dangerous interned aliens?
Questions


Pierre-François Casgrain: 1,	2 and 3. Since the internees in question were sent to Canada under an arrangement with the government of the United Kingdom, it is not considered in the public interest to divulge the information asked by these three questions.
4.	The United Kingdom government sent a senior official of the Home Office to Canada. He is at present dealing with the cases of civilian internees who were sent by the United Kingdom for internment in Canada.
5.	So far as has been possible, internees who have been definitely classified by the United Kingdom authorities as class "C" are not detained in camps with combatant prisoners of war or enemy aliens classified as class "A".


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What were the total expenses in connection with the administration of the soldier settlement board during the past fiscal year?
2.	What were the total payments made by soldier settlers to the soldier settlement board during the past fiscal year?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	$586,706,20.
2.	$2,264,673.77, total receipts as follows: Soldier settlers loan accounts, $940,257.38; civilian purchasers loan accounts, $635,439.68; British families loan accounts, $130,028.61; receipts from rentals of real estate, $88,951.37; cash receipts from real estate sales and sundry items, $469,996.73. Total receipts, $2,264,673.77.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-ACQUIRING OF PROPERTIES IN TORONTO
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence taken over the old Canada Life building, 46 King street west, Toronto, from the Canadian Bank of Commerce?
2.	If so, for what purpose, and on what terms of lease or other contract?
3.	Does the department call for tenders for such lease of space-so as to assure competitive bids?
4.	Wliat are the terms and conditions of lease of a building on Albert street, Toronto, taken for a recruiting depot?
5.	What other leases are now in existence by this department in the city of Toronto, where and for what purposes?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

3.	No. An officer with long business experience and capacity in real estate transactions was secured for special duty in connection with the acquisition of land and the negotiation of leases, and he has the benefit of the services of business men who are specially qualified to deal with such problems, to assist him when called upon.
4.	Rented on a monthly basis commencing February 1, 1941, for so long as required by the Crown, at $175 per month; lessor responsible for taxes, insurance, water rates and heating, crown responsible for lighting and cleaning.
5.	It is assumed that the enquiry has reference to the Department of National Defence (Army):
Lessor-Terminal Warehouses Ltd., Toronto. Leased Premises-15,000 square feet at 829 Richmond St. How occupied-Royal Canadian Army Service Corps Supply Depot, Military District No. 2.
Lessor-T. Eaton Co. Building. Leased Premises-280 Lansdowne St. How occupied- Veterans Guard of Canada.
Lessor-Hospital for Sick Children. Leased Premises-Chorley Park. How occupied-Convalescent Hospital.
Lessor

Northrop-Strong Ltd., 49 Wellington St., Toronto, Ont. Leased Premises-434 University Ave. How occupied-Ordnance Workshop Military District No. 2.
Lessor-C.P.R. Building, C.P. Railway. Leased Premises-Room 1403

14th floor. How occupied-Cable Censor.
Lessor-Toronto West Hospital. Leased Premises-Grace Hospital, Huron and College. How occupied-Toronto Military Hospital.
Lessor-Toronto General Trusts Corp., Bay and Melinda streets. Leased Premises- 60 Atlantic Ave. How occupied-Royal Canadian Engineers Stores.
Lessor-Phi Kappa Pi Bldgs., Ltd., Toronto, Ont. Leased Premises-14 Willcocks St. How occupied-Personnel of Military Hospital Quarters.
Lessor-Purdy Mansell Ltd., 63 Albert St. Leased Premises-4th Floor of 63 Albert Street, Toronto. How occupied-Artillery lecture space and signal classes, 21st Medium Battery, Royal Canadian Artillery.
In addition to the above, accommodation has been leased on behalf of the Department of National Defence (Army), by the Department of Public Works.

Questions


BOUNDARY BAY, B.C., AIR TRAINING FIELD
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	From whom was the land for the airfield at Boundary bay, British Columbia bought?
2.	What is the area in acres of the said airfield?
3.	What was the price paid?
4.	Were tenders called for the work of improving the grounds?
5.	If so, what was the name of the successful tenderer?
6.	Was the lowest tender accepted?
7.	What was the total amount of the accepted tender?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Emma E. Paterson, F. R. S. Loney, Alex. Fisher.
2.	4S0 acres.
3.	$69,200.
4.	Work done by departmental forces by day labour.
5.	6 and 7. Answered by No. 4.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-RENTAL OF PROPERTY IN QUEBEC
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence, or the Department of National Defence for Air, rented space in a building on St. Anne street, Quebec, known as the Morgan building?
2.	If so, (a) what is the rent, and (b) the duration of the lease?
3.	What is the name of the owner?
4.	If owned by a company, what are the names of the directors thereof?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Yes-for joint use of the Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
2.	(a) From the 18th September, 1939, to 29th February, 1940, a total of $941, and from the 1st of March, 1940, at the rate of $325 per month; (b) monthly basis commencing 18th September, 1939.
3.	Estate of the late E. R. Morgan.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
^PUBLIC SERVICE-FRENCH LANGUAGE EMPLOYEES
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	What is the total number of employees in each department of the dominion government?
2.	What is the total number of French language employees in each department?
3.	What is the total amount of salaries in each department?
4.	What is the total amount of salaries paid in each department to French language employees?


Pierre-François Casgrain: This question calls for a great deal of information which is not on file in the various departments of the government. I am informed also that if the question is to be answered it will entail a tremendous amount of work, because each employee in
the various branches of the service throughout Canada will have to be interviewed in order to get part of the information requested.
I suggest that the question be dropped.


Georges Parent: Dropped.


FORT DE LEVIS MONUMENT
Mr. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dundas):: 1.	By whom was the caretaking of Fort de Levis monument on the Dawson property in the township of Edwardsburg, in the county of Grenville, done during the year 1940?
2.	What compensation was paid for the said work?
3.	To whom was this compensation paid?


Mr. CRERAR:: 
SOURIS, MAN., CENSUS COMMISSIONER
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	Who has been made census commissioner for the federal constituency of Souris?
2.	By whom was he recommended?
3.	Is he a great war veteran?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	G. W. McDonald, Boissevain, Man.
2.	By the Minister of Trade and Commerce after consultation with his colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources.
3.	No information.


JOINT SWINE COMMITTEE
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	What are the names, addresses and occupations of the members of the joint swine committee as presently constituted?
2.	By whom were they appointed?


Mr. GARDINER:: I do not think there is any such thing as a joint swine committee. I would ask that the question be dropped and asked again in a form in which it can be answered.


Georges Parent: Dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister says, if I understand him correctly, that there is no such thing as a joint swine committee. He should know. But the evidence is against him. If he will turn to page 933 of Hansard for February 24. just a week ago to-day. he will find that that point arose in connection with a question asked by the
Questions

hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor) which had to do with the grading of hogs. In a reply brought down by the minister himself there is a distinct reference to "the joint swine committee". I refer to answer No. 8, which states in part:
In 1922 the premium on the select bacon grade was established by agreement between the department and the joint swine committee, the membership of which includes representatives of various producers organizations.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not a committee set up by the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, well-


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood the committee referred to was a government committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Any alibi will do!


James Garfield Gardiner: If there is such a committee I will try to get the names, but I do not think we have them on the list.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think you have.
qu'appelle, sask., census commissioner


Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Who has been named census commissioner for the constituency of Qu'Appelle?
2.	On whose recommendation was he appointed ?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton-West):: 1.	Jas. A. McCowan, Summerberry, Sask.
2.	Upon recommendation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ROY:: 1.	_What is the actual effective strength of the Royal Canadian Air Force at the present time?
2.	How many English Canadians, French Canadians, British subjects from overseas, Americans and other nationalities are serving in the said force?
3.	How many have volunteered for and enlisted in the air force in each of the provinces?


AID TO MAGDALEN ISLANDS FISHERMEN
Mr. ROY:: 1. Were any representations made in 1939, and up to date in 1941, by the government of Quebec, that the dominion government should come to the aid of the fishermen of the Magdalen islands?
[Mr. It. B. Hanson.1
2.	If so, (a) what was the nature of such representations, (b) what was the reply thereto, and (c) what action, if any, was taken?


AIRPORTS IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1. Has the government had responsibility for the construction of airports in Newfoundland?
2- If so, what has been' the total expenditure and how much is payable by, (a) the Canadian government; (b) the British government, (c) the Newfoundland government?
3.	Were such expenditures made directly under government authority or through contractors ?
4.	What are the names of each contracting firm, and, (a) the value of each contract when let; (b) the amount paid each contractor to date and the amount due; (c) the estimated amount required to complete each contract;
(d)	the total estimated cost when project is completed?
5.	Who will have the ownership and responsibility for operating and maintenance of such airports when construction is completed?


MOSSBANK, SASK., AIRPORT
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	What are the tot..l amounts spent by the federal government to date on the airport at Mossbank?
2.	What are the total commitments for this project?
3.	What is the cost of erecting the electrical centrifugal pumps and what is the maximum daily supply of water available?


DOMINION CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROVINCES FOR RELIEF
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	How much has been contributed by the federal government to the respective provinces, each year since 1935, for relief?
2.	How much of this was for unemployment relief and how much for agricultural aid?



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	What is the total amount that has been received from the one per cent levy under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, during the present
fiscal year?
2.	How much has been spent in (a) administration costs; (b) bonus to producers?
3.	How many awards have been made under this act during the present crop year?


Pierre-François Casgrain: Order for return.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, why?



FREIGHT RATES EASTWARD ON WHEAT

Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What is the average price per bushel paid to the producer of wheat?
2.	What is the average price of wheat flour charged to the consumer in eastern Canada?
3.	Has the government taken the necessary steps to secure a reduction in the transportation charges on wheat from the prairie provinces to the eastern provinces?

Questions as Orders for Returns



DARTMOUTH, N.S. AIRPORT

Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Who was the engineer engaged on the construction of the Eastern Passage airport at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia?
2.	Was there any change in engineers during the construction period?
3.	If so, why was there a change?
4.	What was the price paid per yard for gravel, under the cost plus contract at this airport?
5.	Was the rock crushing plant used on this cost plus contract?
6.	If so, what rental was paid for the rock crushing plant?
7.	Were there steam shovels used under the cost plus contract?
8.	If so, how many steam shovels were used and how much rental was paid for them?



BUILDING OF STEAMSHIPS AND FREIGHTERS

Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Has a report been made by any officer of the Department of National Defence for Naval Affairs or of any other department, regarding the building of steam ships and freighters?
2.	If so, what locations were surveyed or investigated?
3.	What is the name of the officer or official making such report?
4.	Have _ the possibilities of building steel freighters in Nova Scotia been looked into and reported upon?
5.	If so, what locations were surveyed or investigated, what was the nature of the report in each instance and what are the names of the officers or officials who made such investigations?



PATENTS AND ROYALTIES-ITALY, JAPAN AND GERMANY

Mr. REID:: 1.	In the countries of Germany. Italy and Japan, are the interests of Canadian citizens now being recognized in the matter of any patent rights issued by Canada?
2.	In the matter of patents issued in Canada, have any steps been taken to make available to the government or to any Canadian citizen, patents, the patent rights for which may have been granted to citizens or nationals of Germany, Italy or Japan?
3.	Are any royalties being paid either by the government or other citizens of Canada for the use of any patents the special rights for which may have been granted in Canada to citizens or nationals of Italy, Japan or Germany?
4.	Are any royalties being paid or any payments being incurred to any agent or agents either in Canada or any other country for the use of patents in this country and for which patent rights may have been issued or granted to nationals or citizens of Germany, Japan or Italy?
5.	Is the government protecting in any way the interests of any citizen or national of Italy, Japan or Germany for the use of any patent,
the patent rights of which may have been issued to any such citizens or nationals by the Canadian government?



AIR FORCE-MANNING POOL, TORONTO

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Was an inquiry held respecting an outbreak of scarlet fever at Manning pool, Toronto?
2.	Were any officers and men quarantined?
3.	If so, how many of each rank?
4.	How many cases of scarlet fever were
there ?	,
5.	How many of such cases are now in the Toronto isolation hospital?
6.	What steps are being taken to eradicate this disease?
7.	What number of the R.C.A.F. at this pool have been laid up with sickness other than scarlet fever during 1940 and to date in 1941?
8.	How many officers and men at this pool
are taking the British empire training scheme courses, and how many are only for home duties in Canada?	_
9.	How many civilians are serving at this depot?
10.	Are the depot heads of this pool transferred or changed from time to time?
11.	Has any revision been made in the number of Royal Canadian Air Force guards doing duty on the Toronto water front since the last reply on this question?
12.	What length of time, on the average, does each recruit spend at this depot, and what new courses, if any, have been added?



TRADE AND COMMERCE-SUPERVISOR OF WEIGHTS AND QUANTITY STANDARDS

Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	Is there a supervisor of weights and quantity standards with the Department of Trade and Commerce?
2.	If so, who is the present incumbent?
3.	Does this incumbent function, what is his salary and what are his duties?
4.	What action has he taken in the past three months?
5.	What reports has he made in the last fiscal year?
6.	Does he supervise short weights in coal?
7.	What reports has he made since 1934 on short weights in coal?
8.	What action was taken on these reports?
9.	If action was not taken by the department, what were the reasons?



MOSSBANK, SASK, AIRPORT

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	From whom was the site for the airport near Mossbank, Saskatchewan, purchased?
2.	How many acres were purchased and at what price per acre?
3.	Was the grading, building and other work at this airport done by contract?
4.	If so, who were the contractors and what were the respective contract prices?
5.	What was the total of all contracts?
6.	Where is water obtained for the airport, what distance is it hauled, who has the contract and at what price?
7.	Who supplies the coal, and, (a) who hauls it from the town of Mossbank or other point;
(b)	what is the price per ton for hauling;
(c)	what is the price per ton for the coal at the station?
Motions jor Papers



ELECTRICITY TAX-COLLECTIONS BY PROVINCES

Mr. BROOKS:: What amounts were collected from each province in Canada through the operation of the present tax on electricity?



DAFOE, SASK., AIR TRAINING FIELD

Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What individual or firm has the contract for lighting the airport at Dafoe, Saskatchewan?
2.	What are the terms of the contract?
PRAIRIE PROVINCES AIR FIELDS-TRACTORS FOR PACKING SNOW [DOT]


Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Did the government buy a number of tractors to be used to pack the snow on the air fields in the three western provinces?
2.	If so, from whom, how many, and what was the total amount paid in this regard?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. SENN:: For a return showing, names and addresses, nature of employment and salaries of each civilian employed at the following airports, as of February 1, 1941, (a) Dunnville; (b) Jarvis; (c) Hagersville, and (d) Kohler. Also a statement showing who recommended the appointment of each of these persons.



PURCHASE OF LAND FOR ONTARIO AIRPORTS

Mr. McGREGOR:: For a return showing the names of persons from whom real estate was purchased to provide space for airports at Mount Hope, Jarvis, Brantford, Dunnville, Birch, Hagersville, Fingal and Kohler, the number of acres purchased from and the amount paid to each person.



ST. CATHARINES, ONT., POST OFFICE-STAMP VENDOR

Mr. LOCKHART:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, recommendations, applications, reports and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, regarding the recent appointment of a stamp vendor at the post office, at St. Catharines, Ontario.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-AVERAGE CROP RETURN IN CERTAIN TOWNSHIPS

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents in the possession of the board of review, set up under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, regarding the average crop return in the following townships: 10-15-W. 2nd, 11-15-W. 2nd, and 12-15-W. 2nd.
For a copy of all available data gathered^ by the board of review, set up under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, in computing the average crop return of township 14-20-West of 2nd.
[Mr. Coldwell.l



LETHBRIDGE SOUTHEASTERN IRRIGATION PROJECT

Mr. BLACKMORE:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the Alberta government and federal government, since 1935, bearing upon the question of the Lethbridge southeastern irrigation project, and particularly with respect to the storage of run-off water in the St. Mary river, Alberta.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-SASKATCHEWAN CROP FAILURE AREA

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the provincial government of Saskatchewan and the federal Department of Agriculture, regarding a crop failure area being set up under section 4 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.



PORT WILLIAMS, N.S., PUBLIC WHARF

Percy Chapman Black: For a copy of all payrolls and accounts of expenditure by the Department of Public Works on the public wharf at Port Williams, Nova Scotia, for the year ending December 31, 1940.
Also a statement showing the amount of money paid to Gordon Gates as foreman, wharfinger, harbour master, or for any other services or materials supplied to the Department of Public Works at Port Williams, Nova Scotia, for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, and for the year ending December 31, 1940.



MOUNTED POLICE-CORPORAL ART REED

Mr. NICHOLSON:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the Department of Justice, dated during the years 1939 and 1940, with respect to the dismissal of Corporal Art Reed, formerly with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at Pelly, Saskatchewan.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I am sorry, but I have to ask that this motion be not adopted, because it refers to a matter of internal discipline of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The correspondence and documents referred to are confidential, and it has always been the practice so to consider them. It is against the public interest that this matter be made public.



FORT DE LEVIS MONUMENT

Mr. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dundas):: For a copy of all correspondence with the Department of Mines and Resources or any other department of government or branch thereof with respect to the Fort de Levis monument since the date that the land for said site was presented to the government of Canada.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am informed it would take about two weeks to copy all the documents

Aircraft Production
asked for in this return. There is no objection to bringing them down; but if the hon. member has some particular point upon which he wishes to get information, or if it would be satisfactory for him to examine the files himself, it would save a very considerable amount of work. A blanket order of this kind involves all the correspondence which happened to come into the department in connection with this particular matter.


Arza Clair Casselman: If I have the privilege of perusing the files, and, if I find what I expect, I have the privilege of taking copies, that will meet with my approval.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I would have no objection whatever to furnishing the hon. member with copies of whatever documents on the files he wishes to have. I had better, though, to keep matters regular, have my office make the copies.


Arza Clair Casselman: That is quite satisfactory.



DOMINION PURCHASES OP COAL FOR USE IN NEW BRUNSWICK

Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a return showing the tonnage, price paid and source of all coal purchased by the dominion government during the past calendar year for use in the province of New Brunswick.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-ELECTRIC POWER, NEW BRUNSWICK

Heber Harold Hatfield: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the munitions and supply board and any member thereof and the New Brunswick hydro commission or any member thereof, in regard to the furnishing of electric power and the amount of power available.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-ORDERS FOR NEW BRUNSWICK FIRMS

['There is nothing else in them. They related entirely to guns.']
Heber Harold Hatfield: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the munitions and supply board or any member thereof and the New Brunswick
government in regard to securing orders for the rms located in the province of New Brunswick.



Mr. PERLEY:: For a return showdng the names of persons from whom land was purchased to provide space for airports, bombing schools or air training landing fields at Mossbank, Moose Jaw, Broadview, Wolseley and Moosomin, Saskatchewan, giving the number of acres purchased in each instance and the amount paid per acre to those from whom the land was purchased.


NATIONAL PARKS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend The National Parks Act for the purpose of withdrawing certain areas of land from the Prince Albert National Park as presently constituted, and for establishing new boundaries for the said park as a consequence thereof.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe)? In view of the disturbed condition of the public mind in regard to aircraft production at this critical time will the minister lay on the table of the house the missing pages Nos. 5, 6, 7 and part of 8 of the MacMillan report, deleted on the ground that they contained confidential information? Were those pages marked "confidential", or is that the minister's own interpretation? Does the minister mean to imply that this information would be valuable to the enemy? If not, then on what ground has it been withheld? Will the minister give a statement setting forth the essence of all discussions which took place between him and Mr. MacMillan in relation to the latter's report? Will the minister relieve Mr. MacMillan of his oath of secrecy and prove he has nothing to conceal by asking Mr. MacMillan to make a statement and thus allow the public to judge who is responsible for the present dangerous and alarming delay in aircraft production?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started out with the preamble, "In view of the disturbed condition of the public mind in regard to aircraft production," I must say at once that I am not aware of the disturbed state of the public mind. So far as pages 5, 6, 7 and part of 8 of the MacMillan report are concerned, these pages have nothing what-
Wheat

ever to do with aircraft production and make no reference to it. The report itself was a highly confidential document which was prepared by Mr. MacMillan for submission to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and the war cabinet. It became such a subject of discussion that I offered in the house to lay on the table such portions of the report as could be laid on the table without disclosing military secrets which it is not the privilege of the Canadian government to disclose. We have been requested particularly by the British government not to disclose items in connection with small arms and gun production which are contained in the pages which were deleted.
When I made the offer to the house the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) said that he quite understood why the pages in question could not be laid on the table, and later in his speech he said he quite agreed with me that they should not be laid on the table. As to Mr. MacMillan being relieved of his oath of secrecy, as long as Mr. MacMillan is an officer of the Department of Munitions and Supply I am afraid he will have to comply with the rules governing the officers of that department as laid down by order in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The statement I made was based upon the theory that the particular pages related to the production of guns. If there is anything else in them, that statement would not apply.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is nothing else in them. They related entirely to guns.



QUESTIONS AS TO PRICES AND QUANTITIES SOLO SINCE AUGUST 1

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. JAMES A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce): A few days ago the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) asked certain questions in regard to the amount of wheat which had been sold since August 1 last, to whom sold, and the average price received. The sale of 100 million bushels (futures) to the cereals imports branch of the United Kingdom ministry of food was announced on August 8 last. Sales have been made to neutrals and Canadian mills, but a considerable portion of this business is being handled through the open market. In such cases the producer does not deliver his wheat to the Canadian wheat board. So far as the board sales are concerned it is thought inadvisable to give the prices at which the board wheat is sold or the amounts of board wheat sold in addition to that mentioned.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: I should like to refer to a question asked in my absence on Friday by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). The question was:
' Has the Department of National Revenue requested that cooperative organizations throughout the dominion file income tax returns?
The answer to that question is, no.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Pension Act to make its provisions applicable to certain members of the Canadian forces serving in the present war and to their dependents, to extend the benefits of the act to certain persons serving in the forces of the United Kingdom and also to make further changes and adjustments in the procedure and administration of the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Mr. GREEN:: How many men have been discharged from the different forces in the present war, and how many of them have been discharged as physically unfit?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I have not that information at hand, but I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend to-morrow. I have had the information brought up to date, the number discharged and the number medically unfit, but I did not anticipate that this question would be asked on the resolution.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give an approximate figure?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The approximate figure is 20,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister make a general statement as to the necessity for this legislation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This resolution will be followed by a bill to amend the Pension Act. The main portion of the bill will give statutory form to orders in council passed in the last fifteen or sixteen months dealing with questions of pension legislation and administration. Certain new

Pension Act
principles will be enacted in the legislation, and there are other amendments dealing with administration and procedure. Provisions are being made for Canadians serving with the imperial forces, which provisions will be in accordance with the terms of an order in council passed already. When the bill passes the second reading it will be referred immediately to the committee appointed the other day by the house. This committee is now being organized and every part of the bill will be carefully considered by it.


Howard Charles Green: How many men in our new forces have been granted pensions already?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The total number is 484, made up of 148 on account of disability, 273 to dependents for death, and 63, gratuities in settlement for disability.


Howard Charles Green: That is, 484 out of approximately 20,000 men who have been discharged?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is all the Canadians who have been discharged up to date, those serving overseas and in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Of those who have received pension, what number served in England and what number in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not that information before me.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister have it to-morrow?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are there any in addition to that 20,000?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Pension adjudication is fairly well up to date. It takes from forty to forty-five days after a discharge is given to get a decision.


Howard Charles Green: How many applications for pension have been rejected?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the early stages there were several thousand rejected. I shall get the exact information and give it to my hon. friend later.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any difference as to the qualifications for pension between the man who has served in England and the man who has served in Canada? I understand a different principle is applied when a man has served overseas.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a section in the bill which repeats in statutory form the provisions of the order in
council passed on May 21, 1940, which dealt with those who served overseas. The principles are the same as those that governed the award of pensions to those who served in the great war. In reference to those who served in Canada, after the passing of the order in council of May 21, 1940, the insurance principle was departed from and pensions are awarded for disabilities incurred on service. In other words, the disability must be due to service as such.


Howard Charles Green: Just what does that mean? Suppose a man is injured in one of the military camps; under what condition would he be given a pension?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the injury or disability is incurred while he is actually on service, while he is carrying out the ordinary duties of his service, he would be pensionable, but if he were accidentally injured while doing something apart from his ordinary military service duties, he would not be pensionable. This is a contentious provision and it will be thoroughly discussed by the special committee.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the principle that he
must be, for example, actually drilling or firing a rifle the time of injury to qualify for a pension?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He must be on duty. A certain amount of latitude and discretion is left to the pension commission in the administration of this provision, and instructions have been given to place the fairest possible interpretation upon it.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: The minister says that it takes about forty-five days before the pension is granted or refused. What happens to the man in the interim? What has he to live on?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Some of them are undergoing treatment in the hospitals of the department. Under an order in council passed last year treatment allowances can be continued up until the award of pension, or, if pension is not awarded, up to seven days after the decision has been made. With regard to other cases, provisions have been made in regard to the various committees throughout Canada, and the civil service commission is appointing very shortly welfare officers to consider perfecting the liaison between the different departmehts to provide for the thorough after-care of these men.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With
regard to the principle underlying the pensions to be granted those injured in Canada, does the minister mean to imply that it is the
Pension Act

principle followed in the old employers' liability insurance scheme, which provided compensation for those injured within the scope of their employment? Is that what the minister is trying to tell the committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes-but not for overseas service, of course.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Are the young men
who are taking the thirty days' training in the training depots, or the four months training as it is now to be, considered to be on active service? If so, if one of them is taken ill at a training depot and is sent to hospital and dies there, will his dependents be eligible for a pension?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, if he incurred his disability as a result of his duties.


Mr. NEILL:: I am thinking of a particular case-I know that is always unwise-of a man who was in the military service but not overseas, and in the course of his duties he was ordered to go on parade and play football. That was an order. He went on parade and was told to play football. He played football and got a severe injury to his head while playing. Somebody kicked him. They will not recognize that as entitlement to pension. I think he should be entitled to a pension.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, if he was ordered to perform duties in connection with his service and was injured in the course of those duties I should say he would be entitled to pension. That would be a matter for interpretation by the commission, and they are disposed to be fair in their interpretations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How does that come within the scope of his employment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If he was ordered to do it, it would be a duty.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understand that married men with the forces are granted an allowance for two children. In the event of a pension being granted, how many dependent children would qualify for pension, assuming there are four children left?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They would all be entitled to pension if they are eligible under the act and are under sixteen.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is there any provision for pension for aggravation of a disease while on service? I have in mind a man who after being in the service for some little time was found to have tuberculosis, but the doctor
fMr. R. B. Hanson 1
stated he must have had the disease before he entered the service. There is no doubt that it was very greatly aggravated while on service. What happens in a case of this kind?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is referring to one of the most difficult questions in pension administration, the aggravation of a condition such as he has mentioned. Under the old act, if aggravation took place, he would be entitled for the aggravation. There have been cases in Canada of men who have been only two or three months in the service and have developed chest or lung trouble. It is very difficult indeed to establish aggravation when the period of service has been short.


James Arthur Ross: The minister stated that approximately 20,000 men have been discharged and about 400 pensioned. What has been done to rehabilitate those who have been discharged and not pensioned?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In my statement to the house on December 6 I gave an analysis of what we were endeavouring to do to rehabilitate these men. We have six or seven committees meeting every week to discuss this very problem and we trust that the new organization that is being set up of veterans' welfare officers, in cooperation with various other bodies, will ensure effective steps being taken. As my hon. friend knows, employment is the greatest difficulty. These men are already given preference in work on all government contracts in the departments of Munitions and Supply and Public Works, and facilities are being provided in the Department of Labour to give them preference in training. In every possible way we are doing what should be done so far as we can. This is also a question for further consideration by the special committee.


Alan Webster Neill: Just one more point with respect to another class of dependents- mothers. It has been laid down by the government, and quite properly, that a wife shall receive $35 a month, and if there are any children, $12 for each child. She may be a young woman capable of doing all her domestic chores and perhaps a little outside work, which she is not prevented from doing by the regulations. That is the wife. She gets $35 a month for herself. But if the dependent is a mother she is entitled to get only $20 a month. You may say: The wife has children to support. But I answer that the married woman gets an allowance of $12 a month for each child, and if she is to receive $35 a month for herself I maintain that the aged mother, not perhaps able to do

Pension Act
her own chores, and possibly bedridden, should also get $35 if she was wholly dependent on her son's support.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: She would be entitled to a pension of $60 if he was her sole support.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, if he were killed, but I am talking about the dependent's allowance.
I am not particular which department answers my question so long as the mother is granted more than $20 when her son is her sole support. The married woman gets $35, and it is no use telling me that she may have children to support because she gets paid extra for that, and if she is a young and able woman she can go out and do work, and she is able to do her own chores. But the aged woman, who is perhaps unable to do her own chores and may need medical attention, gets only $20.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I associate myself with what has been said on this 'point by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), and I believe that little latitude should be allowed under this resolution.
I rose particularly to ask the minister for further information with respect to the man who, having been accepted for service overseas, went to England, developed certain disabilities and was returned to Canada and discharged. His wife has been receiving his assigned pay and the allowance. The soldier is discharged as physically unfit and is unable [DOT]to take his place in industry. His physical condition prevents him from following his former occupation. No committee seems to be able to deal with that kind of case. I could cite one or two cases of this kind in my own district where the family has had to go on relief. Will provision be made under this resolution or in amendments to the act to take care of men who have served for a considerable time in England and have then been returned to Canada and discharged and who are not eligible for pension? Some of them received one month's pay and then had to go on relief.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There will be no provision here.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: No provision at all?


James Arthur Ross: What is the percentage of the 20,000 discharged soldiers who were actually medically unfit when accepted for service? It seems to me the percentage is very high.


James Layton Ralston: What is my hon. friend asking?


James Arthur Ross: The percentage of
men now discharged who were not medically fit when accepted.


James Layton Ralston: I have not the figures here.
I can give the number who were discharged as medically unfit after a certain time.


James Arthur Ross: Would not the minister have a record showing whether they were medically fit at the time they were accepted into the army? I mean, unfit from the standpoint of present standards.


James Layton Ralston: The point is that they were accepted as medically fit at the time but were afterwards found to be unfit.


James Arthur Ross: How many of those are there?


James Layton Ralston: I have not the figures
here but I can make an estimate. I believe it would be about nine or ten thousand, about half. I can get the figures.


James Arthur Ross: Does not that seem a large percentage?


James Layton Ralston: It did to me, and I have a report from the director general of medical services.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It suggests that the initial medical examination was, I will not say negligent, but inadequate.


James Layton Ralston: I received a report and there were a number of reasons why the initial medical examination did not detect certain disabilities. I myself did consider the percentage a rather large one. There may have been some causes for it. The reasons are given in the director general's memorandum and I shall be glad to refer to it when the war appropriation bill is before the committee.


Mr. POWER:: I know something about
this. I believe it would have been a crime if we had had the same number of invalids enlisted in the Canadian expeditionary force as there were in the last war, and I think the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) will agree with me. The matter was looked into. People with one eye and one leg often came back and received pensions at the expense of the country. Representations were made to the military medical boards and they investigated them. The medical boards in this war are one hundred per cent better than they were in the last. There were very many men who came in for a week or two and were discharged. They should not have been let in; they were waiting to be X-rayed.
Pension Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I understand the regulations rightly, these young men who were drafted for thirty days' training- now four months-were ordered to report to the nearest medical practitioner. Every registered medical practitioner was authorized, for a small fee, a dollar I believe, to examine these young men. What is the record in this regard? I have heard of some astonishing cases. I heard of a man who was examined by a local medical doctor and who was so blind that when he came to the training centre he had to be helped out of the orderly room. That is of course an isolated case. I would not suggest for a moment that there were many such cases. Perhaps the Minister of Fisheries heard of that one.


Charles Gavan Power: If that is so, it is a reflection upon the medical men of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It slams somebody, whoever it may be. I understand there is some truth in the report. The second case was a man with a club foot who was brought into the military training centre.


Charles Gavan Power: Under the pension act he would not get a pension for so obvious a disability.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it
suggested that the indiscriminate use of everybody in the medical profession in the examination of these trainees before they are brought in is a proper course to pursue? We ought to tighten up on it, and we cannot do it too soon. It costs something to transport these men to the training centre and send them home again.


Charles Gavan Power: The Minister of National War Services is not here, but I would ask the leader of the opposition this question: Would he choose doctors in any community, including his own?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not under cross-examination. There are good doctors and poor doctors and those in between.


Charles Gavan Power: Would the hon. member like to choose them?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would certainly set up a board in every case. It is the duty of the military authorities or of the department to set up a board to ascertain who is medically fit.


Charles Gavan Power: So far as the military medical authorities are concerned, we chose the Canadian Medical association; but as regards examining men who came as trainees, the department did not have time to choose as between one doctor and another in any given
[Mr. Power.l
community. I will wager that if my hon. friend had to choose doctors in Fredericton, if he were running a non-partisan government, he would be in a bit of a hole.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think so. That only proves that the whole thing was an improvisation.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, no. My hon. friend always gets to that stage before he is through. These doctors were chosen on the recommendation of the Canadian Medical association and it was thought that it would be convenient for a man to be examined in his own home town rather than to be transported miles and then sent back. I do not know of the case the hon. member has cited, but there were cases in which there was exceedingly slipshod work.


Mr. McCANN:: What was the percentage?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot give the percentage. There were cases in which they were caught when they came to the training centre because there was a doctor there who understood more clearly the military regulations with respect to the examination of men who were to engage in military training. There is nothing slipshod about it there. The doctors were selected under the department of the Minister of National War Services. The Department of National Defence did not take the men on and had no responsibility for them until they reached the training centre. When they reached the training centre they were examined by the doctors there. Their sheets were gone over and any that indicated the necessity for further looking into the condition of a man were immediately attended to. There were men who had been passed who obviously should not have been. I have sent a note to the director general of medical services to obtain the percentage. This examination was for the benefit of the recruit himself. The selections were made partly on the basis of medical opinion, and medical opinion evidently went wrong in the selection of some of these gentlemen.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But there was no selection. Every registered medical practitioner was qualified and authorized to make examinations. No one was selected by the department, no one was designated-


Charles Gavan Power: Nobody was selected by the Department of National War Services, but when they came to the training camps the men were selected by the military medical men. Of those selected by the war services- I am guessing-I would say that about ten per cent were not fit for Cl-that is, the man who could walk five miles with a pack on his back.

Pension Act


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Apparently there is no provision in the act for rehabilitating such of these men as are unable to take up any vocation. The minister said that committees are being set up to try to rehabilitate them. Has he any idea when men such as four or five whom I have particularly in mind may expect some assistance in obtaining light employment so that they may help themselves and their families?
Mr . MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre): I shall be very glad to look into the cases to which my hon. friend has referred. This resolution deals only with questions of pensions, not questions of reestablishment.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Has the minister any idea when these committees will function?
Mr . MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre): They are functioning now and have achieved some definite results. If my hon. friend will get in touch with me about the cases he has in mind I shall be glad to do what I can.


James Joseph McCann: Before there is any attempt on the part of the leader of the opposition or the minister to castigate the whole medical profession of Canada with reference to rejections for training service-


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will permit me, there was not the slightest suggestion of castigating the whole medical profession; I expressly said that there were cases in which it seemed that a slipshod examination had been made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the hon. member permit me to say the same thing? I was not castigating the whole medical profession, only some members of it.


James Joseph McCann: I think both hon. gentlemen are taking a little backwater now. Anywhere in Canada members of the medical profession who are licentiates either of the dominion council or of the council of any province are perfectly competent to make the type of examination for which the department asked. It is only a cursory examination, and they are allowed a fee of one dollar. There is no objection on the part of the medical profession to making the examination at that fee; and let me say that the medical profession have cooperated with the Department of National War Services one hundred per cent. The fact that there have been some slipshod examinations should not be taken to cast a reflection on the medical profession in general.
When these men go into camp there is a competent board that makes an examination, and they have facilities that are not extended to the ordinary practitioner when he is making his examination. They have X-ray facilities, 14873-74
they are called upon to make certain analyses, and it is much easier for them to pass judgment than for a medical practitioner in examining a man who comes into his office probably during office hours or any time he happens to be in town or in the vicinity. Compared with the number of rejections there have been among draftees for the United States army, the results of the medical examinations made by the profession throughout Canada are very good.


James Arthur Ross: Do I understand the minister to say that on arrival at the training depot every recruit was reexamined by an authorized medical official before commencing training?


James Layton Ralston: I understand that is so.


Howard Charles Green: This discussion has brought out a point which is of the utmost importance in connection with Canada's war effort, namely, the treatment of the men who are being discharged from the forces. The manner in which those men have been discharged is both unfair and unwise. I do not know whether it is the fault of the Department of Pensions and National Health or of the Department of National Defence-I rather suspect the latter; or it may be because of lack of cooperation between the two. But it comes out clearly from the facts given to us to-day. The Minister of Pensions and National Health says already about 20,000 men have been discharged from the Canadian forces. He says that out of that 20,000, only 484 have received pensions and there are practically no applications pending. The Minister of National Defence says that between 9,000 and 10,000 of those 20,000 have been discharged because they were medically unfit.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend must not pin me down to that, because I have said I will get exact figures.


Howard Charles Green: I do not blame the Minister of National Defence in person but I do blame the medical officers in his department.


James Layton Ralston: I say, do not blame us on figures until we get them.


Howard Charles Green: Another figure was given by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, who said that 4,000 to 5,000 men have applied for pension and been refused. I am afraid the situation is that the Department of National Defence have been discharging these men just as fast as they can; as soon as they decide that a man will not get back to health and make a good soldier or air man or sailor he is discharged summarily from the force. That is not good enough.

Pension Act


James Layton Ralston: What does my hon. friend suggest that the department should do? Keep them on?


Howard Charles Green: Now may I continue? Practically no plans have been made to aid those men in the convalescent stage. Convalescent homes should be set up in Canada, and the men should be nursed back to health instead of being thrown out on their ear. The medical examination when they were enlisted was far more severe and thorough than the examination in the last war, yet thousands of men are found unfit and simply thrown out. I know no more effective method of making communists than by treating in this way men who have enlisted for active service. Since Christmas I have had about a dozen men come to my office all of whom were treated in that way.
As a rule I do not believe in going into individual cases in the house, but there is one in Vancouver which illustrates the point so clearly that I will give both ministers the name and number so that they can check up and reply. It is the case of Private A. A. Stewart, of the army service corps, No. K 79092. This man was an imperial in the last war. He enlisted in the non-permanent active militia and went to camp with them in May 1940. In June he enlisted in the active service force. In August while on leave in Vancouver from Esquimalt he took sick, was put in the small hospital at Seaforth armouries, and then sent to Shaughnessy military hospital. There it was found he had a bad kidney which would have to be removed. He was kept in Shaughnessy hospital three months while letters passed and attempts were made to get instructions from a department at Ottawa, presumably the Department of National Defence, as to what should be done-whether or not they could remove the infected kidney in that hospital. Finally word came through that he was to be discharged from the army. The doctors in Shaughnessy hospital felt so badly about the case that they arranged for the man to be taken into the general hospital in Vancouver and given his operation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was arranged from here.


Howard Charles Green: At any rate even the departmental doctors in Vancouver were greatly exercised about the case. The man was turned out of Shaughnessy hospital in that condition on November 2, as a walking case. Fortunately he was able to get a lift down to the general hospital, where he was put in the relief ward with orientals and people on relief although he was in the uniform of the

Canadian active service force. Two days later he was discharged from the Canadian army, and of course the general hospital authorities had to take care of that operation. When he was discharged the allowances to his wife and children were cut off.
This sort of thing must be stopped. As I have said, in my opinion the Minister of National Defence personally is not to blame;
I know he is just as sympathetic as any of the rest of us. But apparently there is a policy in the medical services at headquarters here that is entirely too hardhearted and unreasonable under existing conditions. Provision should be made so that these men who have been willing to offer their lives could be nursed back to health so far as that may be possible, by some government department. Every man who is discharged as medically unfit should be transferred to the Department of Pensions and National Health; his pay and all his allowances should be continued until he has received treatment and has had a chance to recover, or until his claim for pension has been ruled upon by the pension commission, which I understand takes at least six weeks and, in many instances much longer.


Mr. HOWDEN:: How long was this man
in the army?


Howard Charles Green: This man enlisted in the
active service force in June. There is another feature to the question. When a man who has been discharged as medically unfit tries to get a job, his prospective employer asks, "Why were you discharged from the army?" The answer is, "I was medically unfit"; and the result is that this man simply cannot get work. The whole question of the treatment of these discharged men should be looked into by the government immediately, and steps should be taken to see that they are dealt with fairly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could the minister give
us the number under each of these categories?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With pleasure. The figures are as follows:
Period of service-
Less than 30 days	 2,059
Less than 90 days	 5,185
Less than 183	days	 6,905
Less than 365 days	 3,219
More than 365	days	 741
Under category (A), the first one I mentioned, the figures are as follows:
Period of service-
Less than 30 days	 876
Less than 90 days	 2,568
Less than 183 days	 4,252
Less than 365 days	 2,525
More than 365	days	 608
Total	 10,829
Does my hon. friend want the figures broken down by military districts?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No. All those not likely
to become efficient soldiers would not necessarily be medically unfit?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; those are separate categories. Under category (B) the number is 1,073, and under category (C) it is 520.


Mr. REID:: Perhaps the minister could
put the whole table on Hansard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The remaining figures are: category (D), 1,289; category (E), 331; category (F), 4,067. The grand total amounts to 18,109.


James Arthur Ross: I think this statement by the minister is further proof that the medical inspection has been terribly slack. The government has had the experience of the last war to guide it, and the fact that the percentage is still as large as has been stated by the minister is ample proof that there has been carelessness somewhere in connection with these medical examinations.
Further, Mr. Chairman, I think this is very unfair to many municipalities throughout the country. As hon. members know, the Minister of Labour has informed the provinces that after the end of this month the federal government will make no further contribution towards the cost of relief. These men, as the previous speaker pointed out, are under a great handicap in seeking employment. They become a direct charge on the municipalities, which is most unfair both to the municipalities and to the discharged soldiers. I would strongly urge upon the government, in the first place, that they tighten up their medical inspection and, following that, that some system of convalescent care should be developed under which these men would be nursed back to health when they are discharged as medically unfit. I think it is the duty of the federal government to do everything in its power for these people who find themselves in this position.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the three services: the total number of applications for enlistment in the army was 192,415. Of these, 28,316 were rejected as being permanently unfit and 7,949 as being temporarily unfit, a total of 36,265. These combined figures represent a ratio of 188-47 per thousand. Subsequent to attestation, 3,492 were rejected up to June 1, 1940. This would represent 1-2 per cent of the whole, which, added to the 18-8 per cent before attestation, would amount to 20 per cent.
In the air force the total number of examinations made in twenty recruiting centres from August 1 to September 30, 1940, was 21,311. As a result of these examinations, 5,244 were rejected, or 24-6 per cent. These are the-
Pension Act

comparative figures. In the navy there were 149 rejected after attestation as medically unfit, or 12-4 per thousand.


James Joseph McCann: Is it not a fact that
applicants for both the navy and the air force are examined by a board?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


James Joseph McCann: The only applicants who are examined by individual doctors are those for the training camps. I think that should be understood. If they were rejected, that was done by a board; and surely when a board of three medical men is set up, it is an added protection both to the department and to the individual.
While I am on my feet I should like to ask the minister one other question. In the changes in the act is it proposed that a pensioner may be able to avail himself of local hospital facilities instead of having to go all the way to what we might call a regional hospital, as is the case under the present system? My understanding is that when a pensioner develops some disability that requires hospital treatment, he is not entitled to enter a local hospital and receive treatment at the expense of the department; he must proceed to a regional hospital-in the Ottawa valley it would be to either of the hospitals here in Ottawa-where he receives treatment the cost of which is paid by the department. I would suggest, as I have suggested previously, that the law could well be changed to permit pensioners to avail themselves of the privilege of taking treats ment in any of the modern hospitals which now exist in a great many of the smaller communities, provided the pensioners can get competent hospitalization and treatment in their own localities.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no such provision in the proposed amendments, but I will see that the matter is brought to the attention of the committee.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the Minister of
National Defence be kind enough to waive etiquette and answer a question which the Minister of Pensions and National Health says does not come under his department; that is, why the dependent mother gets only $20 while the dependent wife gets $35?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot answer my hon. friend with regard to the amount. I may say however that the whole matter was dealt with by a committee at the time provision was made for dependents' allowances. The matter was gone into last year, as hon. members will recall. The situation is this:

A mother has never been recognized as being entitled to pension or allowance, as of right. That principle begins away back with the pensions connected with the last war. The provision then placed in the Pension Act, and the provision there to-day, is that pension is allowed only if it is shown that the soldier was supporting his parents, and then it is allowed only to a limited amount.
A wife is entitled to pension, as of right. Even if she has a private fortune in her own right, she is entitled to pension. The mother is not so entitled. A case of need and the fact that the soldier has been supporting the parents must be	shown,	in	order that	theparents may qualify. That	applies to	the
father and to the mother.
At the time of the last war there was no provision whatever for pensions to parents. Assistance given to parents was taken care of through the patriotic fund. Perhaps I should not put it that strongly, because as I speak it comes to me	there	was	one provision
respecting a parent, and I would have to look that up. Generally speaking however the patriotic fund was the source looked to.
In this war,	under	the	provision	for
dependents' allowances we have introduced the same sort of provision which appears in the Pension Act, namely provision for a parent in need. That need must be shown, and, if shown, the parent who has been supported by a soldier is entitled to a limited amount. The amount is less than the amount allowed a wife. I cannot tell my hon. friend why that is so, except that possibly it was felt that primarily there was no entitlement at all, and a limited amount was regarded as all the country should undertake. It is obvious to anyone who looks at our pension laws that a parent is not considered in the same position as a wife, and has never been so regarded. That principle is the one which is carried into the dependents' allowance regulations.
As I have said, the amount was laid down by the committee which dealt with the whole matter of dependents' allowances about a year and a half ago, and the amount was adopted at that time. The matter was fully discussed in the house. At that time the question did come up as to whether a parent should not be entitled to some allowance, when the son was liable for that parent's support and was unable to contribute because of circumstances beyond the parent's control. An amendment was made to make provision for such a case. The whole distinction is that one is in the nature of a compassionate allowance, and the other is an allowance as of right.

Pension Act


Mr. HOMUTH:: The fact of the matter is that in this war we have done away with the patriotic fund. It does not exist, as it did at the time of the last war.


James Layton Ralston: That is correct.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Renfrew South. In the last two years we have had many cases such as those cited by him. The nearest military hospital to my constituency is in London. There have been cases where soldiers have become suddenly ill and have had to have operations immediately. The doctor in charge could not wait until he got that soldier admitted to Westminster hospital. In such circumstances the patients have been taken to local hospitals, and because of that fact have been refused hospitalization.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend right about that? He is speaking about a soldier who is actually serving?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: A soldier of the last war.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, I misunderstood. The Westminster hospital is that of the Department of Pensions.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Yes. This is a serious matter, and much hardship has been caused because of the condition I have described. I suggest the committee might very well recommend that if in the opinion of a doctor from the Department of Pensions and National Health a man should be taken to a local hospital, he might be so taken and the doctor's advice accepted.


Ernest Edward Perley: In the first instance, when the department was calling up trainees, did it not send out a notice that such trainees were to go to the nearest practitioners to receive preliminary examination? Were not those practitioners or doctors provided with certain forms to be filled out? Then did not the trainee take the form to the training centre or to the camp when he came before the board. If after that procedure the trainee developed pneumonia and died, or his death resulted from any other injury or disease, what claim, if any, would his parents have upon the department? Possibly we should not discuss dependents' allowances on this resolution.


James Layton Ralston: I have no objection. Perhaps I am treading on the ground which should be covered by my colleague the Minister of Pensions nad National Health, but I might reply in regard to such a case as that described by my hon. friend, in which a soldier takes cold, or incurs some disability during his service at a training centre-


Ernest Edward Perley: After he has passed the preliminary examination.


James Layton Ralston: This is a case which has to be dealt with by the pension commission. But of course if the soldier can possibly be made well, we endeavour to do it. I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver South was quite fair when he said, to use his own expression, that the country would just throw him out on his ear. The department is just as anxious as anybody else to see to it that the man is restored to health if it is possible to do so. But naturally the Department of National Defence cannot take the responsibility if it is shown that the man has no chance of qualifying within the physical qualifications set out in categories A and B. After that he has to go to the Department of Pensions and National Health, if he has a claim that his disability was "attributable to service as such". Those are the words of the act. The answer to my hon. friend, in short, is that the board of pension commissioners and nobody else-I say this advisedly-can decide definitely whether a case is one in which pension should be allowed.


Mr. POULIOT:: If we look at the estimates for the Department of Pensions and National Health we see that the amount for the pensions branch has decreased from $56,378,553 to $53,921,407. I presume that reduction is due to the fact that many veterans of the world war of 1914-18 have been enlisting in this war. But what has surprised me very much since I have been a member of the House of Commons is that no check-up has been made by the department of the pensions granted throughout this country. I know of cases where soldiers who were unworthy have received pensions, and other cases of welldeserving veterans who did not receive pensions. For a time I complained of the board of pension commissioners, saying that the members of it were not qualified to sit on the board because they had had no medical experience. The answer given to me by the department was that they had fine military records. That seemed to cover everything. One of them is a high-ranking officer, a very fine man-and the Minister of National Defence may listen to me; I am not making what he calls an attack on him. I have nothing to say against this man personally, but I do say he is not qualified to sit on the board of pension commissioners because he knows nothing about medicine.
I shall refer to some specific cases. There is the case of regimental number 897. one of the first to enlist in the last war. He was a husky fellow, a lumberjack, well-built
Pension Act

physically. He looked quite strong. He spent four or five years over there sleeping in the mud and facing all sorts of difficulties. No one can say that a man who lived that sort of life for four or five years would be normal physically when he came back. Such a case is worthy of consideration. I have another case of a man who enlisted in the first year of the last war. He was a barber. He received a bullet through his right hand and was granted S100. I made many complaints for this man; I have a thick file of correspondence but that is all he got.
On the other hand, there are many men who received pensions and who do not deserve [DOT]them. There should be a check-up. I admit that this would be a most unpopular measure, but it is necessary. This country is not rich enough to be able to afford to pay pensions to men who do not deserve them, when there are, on the other hand, deserving cases in which pensions should be granted.
I have many other cases about which I have written to the Department of National Defence. I know of one young man who enlisted voluntarily and who, I believe, went to Valcartier. Last fall he suffered an attack of bronchial pneumonia. He did not receive the attention he should have received, according to what a medical doctor, a member of the department, said in Quebec city. Since Christmas I have be-n corresponding with the Department of National Defence in an effort to get some satisfactory answer.
This man has been sent from pillar to post. He was not looked after as he should have been, and I am always told that the Department of National Defence has received no answer from the Department of Pensions and National Health. I do not blame the minister for this; I blame the Tory asses who are under him and who will not give a satisfactory answer when a soldier is suffering. That is shameful. I do not want to see anyone suffer unjustly, especially a soldier who has defended or is defending this country.
This is my first point. I have never written the minister about this, but as soon as I am through I shall send him the name of this man and I want an answer to-morrow. I want to know who is guilty in this business. Of course, sometimes this chamber is a pink tearoom, we cannot say anything, we have no freedom of speech. We are making what is called an "attack" on the great medical geniuses of the Department of Pensions and National Health. Most of them are asses, yes, asses; a-s-s-e-s. No satisfaction is given to the soldier by these people who get such fat salaries. It is a great scandal and I hope the minister will clean out this Augean stable.

I mean the Department of Pensions and National Health. The manure has become health. It is a shame, and no one can defend it. I shall have more to say about this in due course and will give names. I suppose no answer will be given, or it will be said that the industrious leaders, the asses, have decided that this fellow was not deserving of a pension. I want to speak freely and there is no one in this committee to prevent me from saying what I am here to say. My people are satisfied with me. They are proud of me and they want justice.
There is something else, perhaps on a different line. This has to do with certain absurdities in the statute, one being the preference granted, not only to the returned men who served in the Canadian forces but to 'those who served in the allied armies, that is, the armies of Italy, Japan, the United States, France and so on. This preference is granted to those who served in the forces of those countries which signed the Versailles treaty on the same side as Great Britain. With one exception, Canada is the only country which has granted such a preference. The only exception is the state of Maine in the United States, where certain preference was given to Canadian veterans. But that preference was repealed long ago; it exists no more.
Some years ago I was the sponsor of a bill to repeal the "allied preference" given by Canada. I did not insist upon the bill being considered because a member of the government told me that it was the intention of the government to dispense with this so-called preference. But what happened? A civil service committee sat during one whole session and one of the conclusions reached was that this preference should be taken away from the veterans of the allied armies, if they had not resided in Canada before the war of 1914-18. I see in this committee certain members who sat on that committee and they will remember that no action was taken. Another committee met the following year and made exactly the same recommendation, but that recommendation is still on the shelf exposed to dust or moisture, depending upon whether the weather is dry or damp. That is what happened.
The first thing to be done is to repeal this preference. But there is another thing also. Why	was	this preference granted	to	thereturned men of the last war? It was granted because the Borden-Bennett government	did	not keep their promises	to	thesoldiers. A lot of foolish promises were made	by	Sir Robert Borden and	his	colleagues to	the returned men. They were	told
Pension Act
that when they came back they would be given everything, the country would be theirs. These promises were not kept, so that a preference in the civil service was given to the returned men. If there is any member of this committee who does not know what this means, I will explain it to him.
According to the statute, in applying for a civil service position the returned man is given a preference over the civilian provided that he has the necessary minimum marks to pass the examination. There is a second preference given which was not asked for by the returned men but which was placed upon the statute book by the profiteers of the last union government who wanted to sell their bacon overseas. This is a preference to the disabled man. This preference was supposed to be given to men who were wounded, but that is not the meaning which has been given to the word "disabled." It is taken to mean a man who has a pension; therefore, a man who was not wounded but who has a pension is given priority or preference over the man who was wounded but who has not been able to secure a pension. It is really a double preference. The man with a pension has a preference over the other returned men provided he has the necessary minimum marks.
In that matter, too, all governments were afraid to take action. They left it at that, although the standard of the civil service has been lowered because of the fact that in several cases the very best men available were not accepted and the positions were given to returned men with minimum marks.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Oh, you are talking nonsense.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right, but I
want my hon. friend to listen. I am not speaking of him. and I should like him to listen and pass judgment after I am through. He may say anything. Everybody is accustomed to his outbursts, but I should like him to read the law, and if he does not understand it, I shall be glad to put my finger on it, or he can put his nose on it and smell it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are you a returned man?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, but I am working for all, and I do not want any interruptions. If anybody wants to shout back at me, Mr. Chairman, will you please tell him to wait until I am through and then we shall all be charmed to hear his eloquence.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall be delighted.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is a most important question, Mr. Chairman. I am not attacking the returned men, I am not attacking those
who have been wounded-not at all. I am simply placing facts before the committee on which I as a member of parliament want action.
The committee probably will agree with me that the preference granted to the soldiers of the allied armies is ridiculous. It was a gesture of fake patriotism, to make us look more patriotic than even the king himself. That question I leave for the moment.
There is a second military preference which was granted to the soldiers, who were promised a lot by the government. It was awarded to them so that their military merit should gain something for them in a very different field. I have no objection to a pension being granted according to the law to any soldier who deserves it according to the law, but I do not see why some men should be discriminated against and others given better chances. I think we should get the very best, the most able men in the civil service, and I want to see equality and everyone treated with justice.	I do not want to
deprive any soldier of his rights, I do not want to deprive any veteran of his legitimate rights, whether the war in which he fought was the Boer war or the great war, or any other war. I repeat, I do not want that at all. But what I do want is justice in every department, and when there is an injustice somewhere and I know it, I shall denounce it bitterly so that the wrong can be redressed as soon as possible.	I am not afraid of
anyone. God is my master, and I am afraid of him and nobody else.
The Borden government promised everything to the returned men, but they did not deliver the goods. Afterwards they introduced the military preference in civil service appointments, and now it works against the sons of the very men who served in the war of 1914-18. My hon. friend the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) will probably meet many of his constituents who will complain of the fact that although they fought in the great war, their children are now deprived of appointment to the civil service just on account of legislation that was passed in 1919 by the union government.
But there is something else. We now have conscription for youth. In the Civil Service Act the war is defined as the war of 1914-18, the great war, and the preference there granted to returned soldiers means that a young man who is fully qualified for appointment to the civil service and has passed the necessary examination, even though he be the son of a returned man and has obtained the highest marks in the examination, is completely deprived of the right to be appointed to a
Pension Act

position in the civil service if a returned man, who is much older, has secured the minimum number of marks. And no one knows 'how many classes of young men will be called up during this war. Conscription applies to all. Those who are exempted are exempted because they are medically unfit, or because, in a very few cases, they are required in industry necessary to winning the war. Therefore all our young men are coming under the same military law, and I do not see why now, twenty-two and a half years after the conclusion of the great war, we should maintain this preference in the Civil Service Act which is applicable only to the veterans of the last great war. I cannot understand why that principle should be maintained. If a young man is wounded in this war, he enjoys no preference in appointment to the civil service. If a young man is rejected because he is not physically fit, does that mean that he will be deprived of equality of status in appointments by the civil service commission?
It is not my duty to decide this question, but it seems to me that it will be the duty of the pensions committee to study these questions from all angles with a view to seeing whether it is not time now, the veterans having enjoyed this preference for twenty-two and a half years, that the preference should be withdrawn so that the civil service may be improved by the appointment of the very best men. When I asked Mr. Bland, the chairman of the civil service commission, if the standard of the civil sendee was not lowered by the fact that at times appointments were made of men who had obtained the minimum number of marks instead of the maximum, his answer was in the affirmative. And the truth is self-evident. I hope that the present government and this House of Commons will not repeat the folly of the last government and decide everything upon sentiment. You must decide it upon reason. You must not discriminate against anybody. Give everybody in this country a fair chance. I leave it at that, for the members of the committee to discuss this matter thoroughly when the time comes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just one or two references to the statement which has been made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). In the first place we are supposed to be discussing amendments to the Pension Act, which has nothing to do with the civil service preference for exservice men. In the second place it is within the knowledge of every member that the present legislation is the result of the conjoint and concerted efforts of all parties in the house over a period of more than twenty years. 
There has never been the slightest trace of partisan feeling, so far as my knowledge goes- and I know something about it-in the several pension committees that have sat from 1919 down to the present time. After a study of pension legislation in other countries I am convinced that we have in Canada, with the exception of one or two anomalies here and there, the finest pension legislation in the British empire and possibly in the whole world. That has been the result of the unfettered judgment and hard application of hon. members of this house in previous years working in committee, just as this committee will be working for the next few weeks.
In regard to the gentlemen administering the act, they are as fine a body as you will find in the Dominion of Canada, and I personally resent on their behalf any attack upon their integrity, their motives or their ability. Derogatory language was used also with reference to some of the medical officers connected with the administration of pensions. In my judgment such remarks do not worthily reflect upon anyone who utters them. These men belong to one of the noblest professions in the world and they are doing their best to serve the department and the country, as we in this chamber are endeavouring to serve the country. I have found on their part nothing but a desire to render the best service possible and I absolutely repudiate any suggestion of unfairness or of inability in the administration of the work which has been entrusted to them.
I will not discuss at this stage the question of preferences. That question can be discussed if the committee deals with the matter of rehabilitation. I suggest that we should not be given to extreme or extravagant language at this juncture in view of the fact that a committee representing every group in the house will have an opportunity during the next few weeks to study the whole question of pension legislation, veterans' allowances, administration and general problems of rehabilitation.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I am very glad indeed to hear the closing remarks of the minister and the assurance that the purpose of the committee is to study all angles in connection with any changes that may be contemplated in the pension act. What I rose to say is this. When I had first heard that the Pension Act was to be amended I had hoped that it would embrace something with regard to the widening of the regulations pertaining to the widows of deceased pensioners. The first part of the resolution reads:
That it is expedient to amend the Pension Act to make its provisions applicable to certain members of the Canadian forces serving in the present war and to their dependents.

Pension Act
I especially wish to direct my remarks to the words "their dependents". Under the present act, if a pensioner receives less than 50 per cent pension and he dies, his widow generally speaking receives nothing. There are some regulations with regard to temporary assistance but she gets nothing in particular. I wonder if such a matter will come up before the pensions committee. If it does I should like to appear and to present arguments in favour of widening the regulations under the act somewhat after the manner of Australia or the United States. In Australia, I believe, when a pensioner dies his widow receives the pension that he enjoyed in his lifetime. If he received ten or fifteen per cent the widow gets the same. If such a matter does come before the committee, then I am satisfied with the resolution and I want to support it.
I should like to ally myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). In the riding I represent there are as many enlistments as there are in any other constituency, if not more. In the great war the part of the city of Toronto which I represent was one hundred per cent old country stock, and these men enlisted en masse. Many regiments were raised there. During the last twenty years, therefore, I have had a good deal to do with pension matters relating to soldiers, and since the outbreak of the present war I have come in contact pretty much with the same conditions as have been brought to the notice of the hon. member for Vancouver South. Soldiers not long in the army have been discharged for one reason or another-illness and so forth-and most of them are out of work. On telephoning headquarters at 159 Bay street I have been told on numerous occasions to send to headquarters men who had been discharged and were out of work, and I gather that the department is making an effort to rehabilitate discharged soldiers. I hope so. I trust that anything the department can do in that regard will be done. One man I sent to an employer to look for work was not taken on because he had been discharged from the army as medically unfit. I have every confidence in the minister and I know that he will do what he can towards rehabilitating men in jobs and making adequate provision for medical attention so as to enable them to be rehabilitated.
I wish to associate myself with what the minister has said with regard to the pension department. As I said, during the last twenty years I have had to do with thousands of cases and I have nothing but praise for the administration of the pension department. I have found the present head, General McDonald, most sympathetic, most considerate and most courteous. I have nothing but 14873-75
praise for him and no complaints. I have also come in contact with many other members of the department; at least, I believe I have had dealings with as many of them as any other hon. member has had. I can say the same for them as I do for the head. I have taken every opportunity that has presented itself to say that, so far as I can see, the Canadian Department of Pensions is trying to do the best it can under the regulations. If the regulations are not wide enough that is the fault of the House of Commons, and I hope that the committee to be set up will work out something along the line I have suggested, so that there will be more consideration for widows whose husbands in their lifetime received less than fifty per cent. I trust also that something will be done with regard to rehabilitation and medical attention for those who are being discharged.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope that every official of the pensions department will have the words of the Minister of Pensions and of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) illuminated in gold on parchment and framed, and hang it in the living room for the edification of posterity, so that it will be known that on this 3rd day of March they 'have been highly praised by the Minister of Pensions and at the same time by our genial and smiling friend the hon. member for Davenport.


John Power Howden: In connection with pension legislation there are one or two points which I think are worthy of consideration. It has been my lot for the last fifteen years to be a medical doctor and federal representative at the same time, and I can assure the hon. member for Davenport that if a great many persons have interviewed him with regard to pension troubles, I have been interviewed too. I agree with the hon. member for Temiseouata in this, that I have seen a great many men who deserved pensions and who did not get them, while I have seen quite a number who did not and do not deserve pensions who still have them. But I am not going to discuss that now because I fancy it is hopeless. We have to let it go.
There is this point, however. At this late date there are still men who were in the great war, who served faithfully and were not awarded pensions because apparently they were not severely wounded or anything of the kind. But they are in a deplorable condition, and only pensioners are entitled to consideration from the pension hospitals. Where these men are broken down and in failing health, whether as a result of their service overseas or not, the mere fact that they went overseas and offered their service at the risk of their lives entitles them to consideration

Pension Act

at the present time from the pension hospitals. We see these men all the time; they are lesperately in need of hospital treatment; they are honest; they are not drunkards; there is nothing against them morally; but their health is broken; they are eking out a miserable existence, and they get no help from the government in the way of hospital treatment.
Another point worthy of consideration by the department is that a pensioner whose pension is in any way adequate to maintain his family and himself while he lives, leaves his wife without anything when he dies, because then the pension ends. If the family have a hard time to get along while he lives, they have a much harder time after his death, with no pension.
These two points ought to be seriously considered by this committee; namely, pensions for men who have done good service overseas but are not able to maintain themselves, and pensions for widows of pensioners.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: First, I wish to say a word with regard to non-pensioned widows. The pensionable disability necessary now to entitle the widow to a pension is 50 per cent. I would ask the committee and the minister to consider lowering that still further. I do not think it would cost the country a great deal. We must remember that these women took care of these men when they were sick and had a very small pension, and just because the disability was not over 50 per cent they do not get anything. I think that extension could quite easily be lowered to, say 10 per cent pensionable disability, or something around that, because they are all getting older and no doubt the worry they have had in connection with taking care of these men has done much to age them. I hope the committee will take that into consideration.
I have received from the department nothing but the greatest courtesy and consideration in connection with any pension case with which I have had to do. General McDonald has been most courteous, as has the former minister and the present minister also. I have many of these old soldiers in my riding and it is a pleasure to look after them when there is such a department to deal with. The pension advocates at Christie street hospital also deserve a word; they are fine men and very sympathetic.
With regard to the case of the disabled man, I understand the Department of National Defence turns these men, all the seriously ill men of the active service forces, over to the Department of Pensions and National
Mr. Howden.]
Health for treatment. That department proceeds with their treatment, and the men are not discharged from the departmental hospital until the treatment is complete and they need no further hospital treatment. But the point is, are these men discharged from the army; are they in hospital without pay and their dependents without pay? There is a difference between the serving officer or soldier receiving treatment and one retired or discharged to the Department of Pensions and National Health for treatment; the former is in receipt of pay while the latter, in certain circumstances, might not be. No man should be discharged from the army while he is undergoing treatment. His family is dependent upon him; he must have something to support them.
It must be remembered that the treatment given is good treatment and tends to lower his degree of pensionable disability; that means that by good care he may be discharged perfectly well or so improved in health that his ultimate pension will be much lower. Some provision certainly ought to be made for his family while that is taking place. Then, when he gets out of hospital, he is convalescent or a walking case; he is not fit to go right back to work. It is a disgrace if we send that man out with just a suit of clothes; he should be continued on pay for some time until he is able to get a job. One week's pay is not sufficient; he should receive at least a month's pay. Then, as the minister said, certain committees are being set up to try to take care of him after his discharge. I hope these matters will be looked into and have the minister's favourable consideration.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would not want the committee to think that the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Temiscouata is that of hon. members from British Columbia or of the returned soldier members. He dealt with the civil service but forgot to mention a man called Bennett. I hope every returned soldier member of this committee will insist that the preference to returned soldiers in the civil service be maintained. I would go further and have it increased. I assure the hon. member for Temiscouata that, instead of decreasing the value of the civil service, the fact that there are so many returned soldiers in it has been a good thing for Canada, and it would be better if we had more.
I congratulate the government upon having set up this committee to study this problem. On this committee are many returned soldiers, irrespective of party, and surely they should know what the veterans of the last war or the

Pension Act
next war need. I am not depreciating the sincerity of any hon. member, but that is only common sense. Surely medical men know more about medical matters, and we returned men should know more about the mistakes made after the last war. I am not so much interested in whether they were made by Sir Robert Borden or anyone else, so long as we profit by experience and do not make them again.
I must say that in my experience the officials at the Department of Pensions have always been very courteous and fair to me. But I do not agree with the act as it exists to-day, I do not think any returned soldier can. Every member of this house should appear before that committee, because we all know of inequalities. I remember that a day or two before the 1935 election the present 'Minister of Pensions and National Health appeared on the platform with a famous Canadian winner of the Victoria Cross, and they were both absolutely in favour of giving every returned soldier hospitalization. Of course I realize that it is much easier to say such things two days before an election than two days after, but I sincerely hope the minister is still of that opinion. No soldier, whether wounded or not, could possibly serve overseas either in the last war or in this war without suffering some physical disability, and I believe that every veteran should be entitled to hospitalization. A great many have never applied for pension and never will, but surely they should be entitled to hospitalization, and certainly they are not getting it to-day.
The act has done a great deal for the returned man, but it does not go far enough. A widow's pension is cut off when her child reaches sixteen years of age. Where a woman with a child seventeen years old can get a job in British Columbia is something I do not know. I do not know if there has been any recent change, but three weeks ago men were being discharged from these compulsory training camps suffering from pneumonia, and had to be cared for by private citizens immediately on their discharge. That is not good enough; there can be no excuse for that sort of thing being done by this or any other government. My personal opinion is that at the Vernon camp they have no medical men; they have only a bunch of veterinarians. One man at Vernon camp was in hospital for twenty-two days, and the day he was discharged he went to bed with pneumonia. When that sort of thing happens, it is time the man in charge of that camp should be interned. That is what should happen to him. We must accept responsibility for these men. Just in closing, I want to tell the hon. member 14873-75}
for Temiscouata that I hope every returned soldier in this house will take good care to see that the preference is not taken away but rather increased, if anything.


Howard Charles Green: The resolution states that the benefits of the act will be extended to certain persons serving in the forces of the United Kingdom. Just what classes is that meant to cover? For example, would it cover Canadians who enlist in the Royal Air Force?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Or Canadians who enlist in the Royal Navy?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; all Canadians serving with the imperial forces.


Howard Charles Green: Would it cover any firemen who might be sent over to London, let us say?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has not been decided as yet in connection with this legislation. That would be a question for future consideration.


Howard Charles Green: The other cases I have mentioned would be covered?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Is the government giving any consideration to establishing convalescent homes or hospitals for unfit members of the active service force before they are discharged?


James Layton Ralston: Yes; some convalescent homes have been established. Of course my hon. friend understands that convalescent homes operated by the army medical services are for purposes of convalescence, to bring a soldier back to the physical condition which will permit him to reenlist in the army. They are not for the purpose of improving the health of a soldier if it is clear that he cannot again qualify physically. If he is in this position, of course he comes under the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Howard Charles Green: Between the two departments would it not be wise to have some provision under which, before these men were discharged, they would be cared for and nursed back to heajth as far as that was humanly possible?


James Layton Ralston: All I want to say is that as far as the Department of National Defence is concerned there is no desire whatever to draw a sharp line, except to have the house and the country realize that our job is to deal with those who are fit to take their places in the armed forces. When men are disabled
Pension Act

and are not likely to be able to qualify physically in future, we maintain the closest liaison with the Department of Pensions and National Health. When such a man is discharged, an officer is present for the purpose of instructing that man as to what he should do and to whom he should apply, if it happens to be a case that is not to be sent to hospital; otherwise he goes to a pensions and national health hospital, where he is cared for. Under the provision made in order to help bridge the gap, notwithstanding the fact the soldier has been discharged he still receives thirty days' pay.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest to the government in all seriousness that it would be well to look into the situation and see if some further arrangement could not be made in order that these men may be restored to health before they are discharged from the army. At the moment, in many instances the}' are leaving the army in poor physical condition and are forced on relief. I have had such cases happen in Vancouver time and again.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend and I
might as well understand each other. My hon. friend says we should see that they are restored to health before they are discharged from the army. I realize the difficulties which confront a man after he has served in the army, and I do not make this statement harshly at all, but I do not think it is the duty of the army medical services to look after a man after it has been demonstrated that he cannot be restored to the physical condition which will enable him to serve. That is properly the function of the Department of Pensions and National Health, which looks after the ex-service men. The service men are looked after by the army hospitals. I will agree with my hon. friend that between the two departments all cases should be covered, and I will be only too happy to maintain a close liaison in order to see that the man does not fall between the two departments. I want to add that long before my hon. friend spoke-and I know my hon. friend will believe this-my colleague and I had many conferences with a committee, which has already been set up, in an endeavour to establish the best possible working plan in order that the soldier may be cared for at all stages.
At the same time the relative responsibilities of the two departments are recognized. It is no use for me to try to run the Department of Pensions and National Health. It is no use for me to run hospitals for the purpose of helping to restore men to a better state of health if they are not going to be
(Mr. Ralston.]
soldiers in the end. My hon. friend will understand, that. All the facilities of the medical services of the army are required in connection with men who will be fit for active service; and when we have a Department of Pensions and National Health with hospitals and medical officers all over this country, it does seem to me that we have to look to that department to take the responsibility for those men. But with regard to getting the soldier into one of these institutions, assisting him to get there, advising him as to how to get there and seeing that he is not harshly treated in any way, I am one hundred per cent with my hon. friend. I can assure him that anything that has not been done in that respect will be remedied, if I can possibly do so. I think, however, there is less than he believes in the way of harshness as far as the Department of National Defence is concerned. If we believe a man is going to be fit in the end, we will treat him; we will provide convalescent homes and do anything else that may be necessary. If it is demonstrated that he is not going to be fit, then it seems to me, from the point of view of both the man and the country, that there is no use in keeping him on the strength of the army. He does not belong there. He becomes an ex-service man, entitled to the protection and the benefits to which ex-service men are entitled under the regulations.


Howard Charles Green: It does not make much
difference which department is responsible, as long as the responsibility lies somewhere.


James Layton Ralston: It makes a difference
to me.


Howard Charles Green: That may be, but from the point of view of the Canadian people it does not make much difference which department has to do the work. These men certainly should be given as much treatment as possible before they are sent back to civilian life.


James Layton Ralston: Now my hon. friend has
said something.


Howard Charles Green: That is really what I have
been trying to say all the way through. I think the whole governmental policy in that regard should be reconsidered, because the present practice is unfair, and I am afraid it is going to do a great deal to discourage recruiting.


John Power Howden: Would such ex-service man be entitled to treatment in a pension hospital. without himself having a pension?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In many instances remedial treatment has been given for many weeks, with the definite purpose of reconditioning men who are medically

Pension Act
unfit. My hon. friend's point is that this treatment should be extended, and made more comprehensive. That might well be a matter for discussion by the committee. But a great deal is now being done in the direction mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: I should like to pursue further a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South with regard to young Canadians who enlisted in the British forces. I have in mind the case of a young man from the city of Guelph who, a year prior to the outbreak of war, worked his passage overseas in a cattle boat, and enlisted in the Royal Air Force. A month or two before the outbreak of war, and during practice manoeuvres, while he was connected with an attacking force approaching the English coast his bomber was lost, and to this time has not been heard of again. It is presumed, therefore, that he was lost with it.
Many young Canadians worked their way to England and, prior to the outbreak of war, enlisted in the Royal Air Force. Will such young men be entitled to benefits under the Pension Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The provisions are limited to those domiciled in Canada at the commencement of the war.


Mr. GILLIS:: I should like to ask a question concerning men who have been discharged from the forces during the past few months. Has there been any attempt on the part of the department to classify the disabilities and the causes for them, or for weeding out of the army at the present time the large number of men who have been weeded out? Is it a fact that a large percentage of the men being discharged to-day are men who entered the army suffering from malnutrition and were victims of prolonged years of depression prior to the outbreak of the war? Has the department made a check along those lines?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, a definite check. I have not before me the exact results obtained, but I would be pleased to give them at another time.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Has the department made any arrangements to give these men training in the technical and trade schools, before they are discharged? Many of these men had no training before the war. If they are now to be discharged into civilian life, I suggest that they should be given preference in our technical and trade schools, and then given preference in our war industries.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is true in both cases; they are given preference.


Percy Ellis Wright: How many are now being given this particular training?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I cannot give the figures for the present time.


Robert William Gladstone: I understood the minister to say that the benefits of the act are confined to those who were domiciled in Canada at the outbreak of war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Robert William Gladstone: That would exclude the young man to whom I referred, who left Canada and enlisted in the Royal Air Force before the outbreak of the war. I should like the minister to bring this point before the committee, with a view to having an amendment made whereby such men would receive the benefits of the act.


Mr. FAIR:: Would the minister place on record the percentage of rejections in the various provinces, and the average rejections in the dominion of the young men who offered themselves for examination?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Earlier this afternoon I mentioned the six categories. The following table will show the rejections, by military districts:


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did the minister say that men called up for training, under the training scheme, who were permanently injured, would receive a pension under the Pension Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, if they were injured on service, or if their injuries were attributable to or incurred on service.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They are not on active
service. They are attached to the non-permanent active militia units, and are in a different category.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Percy Ellis Wright: Has the minister the number of the men placed in trade schools and technical schools?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall have to get that information.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When amendments are being considered, there is another category to which I believe the minister's attention ought to be directed. For a considerable time I have had correspondence with a man who served with a forestry unit during the last war. He enlisted in 1916, and is now sixty-seven years old. According to information I have received, he was a first-class technician, carpenter, bridge-builder, millwright and lumberman. He built and ran a mill as a millwright. He offered his services, but on account of the valuable work he was doing in Scotland he was not allowed to go to France.
I understand that on account of his not serving in an actual theatre of war he is not entitled to a pension. Would the minister consider including in the eligible group those men with the forestry division who served in Great Britain, and could it be considered that they served in an actual theatre of war, and should be entitled to pension upon reaching the age of sixty years?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That would involve an amendment to present legislation, and might very well be discussed in committee.


Mr. HAZEN:: I realize it is difficult to make the provisions of the act cover fairly and equitably all deserving cases. I have in mind a case where I believe a hardship was suffered by a young man who enlisted. He enlisted in the medical corps, uni after he had been there some months-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In this war?
fMr. I. A. Mackenzie.]


Douglas King Hazen: Yes. He took the medical examination and was accepted. After he had been there for some time he came to the conclusion that if he were going to be in the armed forces of Canada it was his duty to be in a fighting unit. Therefore he applied to be transferred to an infantry battalion. When he joined this battalion he had to undergo another examination, when it was discovered that he had a perforated eardrum. As a consequence he was discharged. He found himself without work because he could not take up his old line of employment. He was out on the street, as it were, without work. He tried to get employment in the income tax branch, but without success. It seems to me that the committee should keep cases of this kind in mind.
I would suggest also that there be closer cooperation between the Minister of Pensions and National Health and the chairman of the civil service commission. I am not familiar with the act and there may be some cooperation at the present time, but I think there should be more. As I understand the regulations, a man who has seen service overseas is given preference in his application for a civil service position. The time will come when there will be many returned men looking for employment and I was wondering whether it would not be possible to keep open a number of positions in the civil service so that they would be available to men who have volunteered their services.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The chairman of the civil service commission is giving attention to that very point at the present time.


Douglas King Hazen: During the last session we were told that about 3,500 new civil servants would have to be taken on in Ottawa under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Might it not be possible to keep open many of these positions, not fill them permanently until these soldiers return from overseas?
The minister may know more about this particular matter than I do, but I have been told that during this winter the Lancaster military hospital near Saint John has been understaffed and overcrowded. I should like him to look into this complaint to see whether it is correct. The second part of the resolution states that it is expedient to make further changes and adjustments in the procedure and administration of the Pension Act. Would the minister give us some idea as to what these changes will be?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are minor routine changes. For instance, it is proposed to change the quorum of the

Pension Act
board from three to two, and there are about five or six minor changes, mostly in connection with routine matters.
Mr. MaclNNIS: The debate on this resolution has been fairly wide in scope. From my experience with the pension board over a number of years, I feel that they do their best to administer the act as fairly as possible. When they do not accede to demands or requests, it is because they cannot go beyond the act. There are thousands of people in Canada who are not returned men, who did not serve in the armed forces but who find themselves to-day in the same position as many of those who did serve in the last war. The extent of economic need is the reason why we have such difficulty in dealing with veterans' problems. It is a wide economic question and we cannot deal with it through the Pension Act. It can be dealt with only by a social security act which would make provision for the economic needs of all affected. I do not want to take anything away from those who have served in the armed forces, but the man who is a casualty of industry should be provided for in a way similar to the means by which we provide for men who have served in the armed forces. We cannot deal with this question or with the disabilities that affect our returned men without improving general economic conditions. We must make the social conditions of the country better for those who have not served in the armed forces as well as for those who have. They must be made better for all the civilian population. When we start doing that, we shall be making a beginning of dealing with the problems of the returned men in a way that will be more satisfactory than that now followed.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: I am glad to hear that there is a possibility that the committee will discuss the matter of widows of veterans. I have come in contact with numerous groups of these women, and it would appear that a great injustice has been done during the last few years. In many instances these women have had to go on relief, and they regard this as charity. They feel they have every reason in the world to expect the government to take care of them without their having to resort to charity. They feel they are entitled to a just reward for having willingly sent their husbands to serve during the last war.
There is another question I should like to put to the minister in connection with children of ex-service men. Suppose a man is receiving pension and dies, and then after a time his widow marries. Would the young children still be eligible for pension?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, but certain amendments are proposed to meet other situations affecting children.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: That will be considered by the committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
Mr. O'NEILL:	Mr. Chairman, I have
listened with a great deal of interest this afternoon to the discussion which has taken place in connection with matters having to do with returned men. There is one matter which has not been called to the attention of the committee. I refer to dependents' allowances for men who volunteer to serve in the reserve army and who may become injured. These men report for duty, say on Tuesday and Friday nights, and with the streets in the slippery condition they are now in, it is quite possible for one of these men to fall and break a leg or an arm. As I understand the situation, the regulations at present provide that the man would receive hospitalization and his pay allowance. In an extreme case it is possible for a man to be laid up for as long as four months. If he is a married man with two or three small children, he would be entitled to only his pay allowance of SI.20 a day.
Provision should be made that, until such time as that man resumes his position in civil life, his dependents will 'be paid the same dependent's allowance as if he were on active service. A great many of the men in the reserve army are making less than S125 a month and it is impossible for them to have anything laid by to provide for a lay-off of three or four months. Some consideration should be given to that phase of the question. There would not be very many to look after, probably half a dozen in any one military district in the course of a year. Has the minister given any consideration to that matter?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to see that it is brought before the committee.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: Is it the intention under the proposed legislation to extend the benefits of the Pension Act to groups who are not serving in the armed forces, to the dependents of men, for example, who are serving in Canadian ships and who may lose their lives at sea, not necessarily through enemy action but in the carrying-out of their duties in essential war services? I understand that provision is made by order in council for the dependents of those who lose their
Pension Act

lives on Canadian ships through enemy action. They are taken care of under the Pension Act-I assume that one of the purposes of thin legislation would be to deal with cases of that kind, and that the legislation itself will be retroactive. But I had in mind particularly cases of a little different kind, of men who have been injured and disabled or have lost their lives, while serving on ships doing necessary war work, but not necessarily through enemy action. In the port of Halifax a year ago the pilot boat Hebridean was sunk in a collision in the harbour, and a number of the crew and several pilots lost their lives in consequence of the collision. Under the law and orders in council that existed at that time no compensation or allowance could be or was given to any of the dependents of the pilots and members of the crew, and I was wondering whether the present legislation would take care of cases of that kind or whether it is a matter that could properly come before the special committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The legislation as drafted does not cover the classification referred to by my hon. friend, but there is no reason why the committee should not give the matter every consideration.


William Chisholm Macdonald: It could be covered by the special committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Mr. QUELCH:: All returned men will welcome the fact that this committee is being appointed to deal with amendments to the Pension Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act. I recall that in 1936 we had a thorough investigation into the Pension Act and we were continually running up against one main obstacle. The minister admitted quite freely that there were many problems which the soldiers had the right to expect us to deal with, but invariably when the question came up, the government did not have the money to deal adequately with the problem. In view, however, of the fact that to-day we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars compared with millions of dollars then, I hope that when these problems come before us, we shall not be met with the same response as then. I hope that we shall be prepared to deal -with these problems on their merits. It will not be a question of generosity. The former leader of the opposition once said that we had been generous to the returned men. It is not a question of generosity. We have a debt, and until that debt is paid in full, there is no question of generosity. Therefore, when these problems come up, I hope we shall

be prepared to deal with them on their merits and not be told that we have not the money to deal with them properly.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence and the minister in charge of this legislation how the medical requirements for recruits for the reserve army compare with the requirements for the active service army. How does a pensioner from the last war in one of the lower categories build up his category so that he can eventually qualify for active service? Would the minister mind explaining, to begin with, the difference between the medical requirements in the active service forces and those in the reserve forces in Canada?


James Layton Ralston: The category of the reserve forces can be "C". "B2" is the lowest category for the active service forces.
May I just before six o'clock supply a bit of information which I promised to the committee on a matter not directly concerned with the resolution but to which reference was made, and that was the discharge, on medical grounds, of a very large number from the active service forces. I had a lively recollection of the whole matter because I had to deal with it myself when a return came to me.
I want to say first that I did regard 10,000 discharges for medical unfitness out of the total number enlisted as being too large, and I am bound to say that I still regard it as too large. Having looked the matter over, 1 would say that the recruiting medical boards, particularly during the first six months of the war, did not categorize with the efficiency which we hoped for, and I say that quite frankly. There was too large a number of men found physically unfit following what was hoped to be a complete and effective medical examination by medical boards composed of three officers.
I think it must be remembered that nearly
200.000	in all were examined, and we are talking about the discharge of something like
10.000	after being accepted. Of those 10,000 more than 3,000 were discharged within the first three months, indicating that very soon their physical unfitness was discovered.
The reasons for it-and there are reasons which have been put before me-are, in the first place, that the medical boards were new at the start. They were not army medical men, but were civilian boards and they did not have the training in army requirements which was necessary.
Obviously, civilian medical personnel would be unfamiliar with the standard of army requirements. Second, wastage, that is to say,

Pension Act
physical unfitness, occurred among men who had not been in army service before, and a large percentage of whom were from urban centres. If one compares these figures with any permanent army figures generally, he will find that the latter have regard to personnel composed of more or less seasoned troops.
It must also be remembered that the figures of enlistment and the number of those discharged include the enlistment of twenty-nine companies of veterans home guards and eleven provost companies as well as numerous others which were included in the active army, but who might be in category "Cl" and "C2," among whom the wastage was a good deal higher than under normal circumstances. It is asked what we are going to do. Some time ago we gave instructions for the establishment of schools for these medical boards and that men were not to be taken on the boards unless they showed themselves fully equipped and understood the army requirements.
Another thing was that the ad hoc boards, the boards set up just from time to time as necessary, were reduced in number as far as possible, and we now have standing medical boards which do nothing but examine these men and therefore can be expected to become expert at this work.
Another thing which has been done is that instructions have been given to the district medical officers that when any medical officer, be he civilian or be he army, is found lax in his examinations, his services are to be dispensed with. His examinations can be quickly checked at national defence headquarters, because arrangements have been made that all the documents come before the officer there, with even a photostat copy of what we call page 3 of the examination. A close check is being kept at headquarters, and instructions have gone out to district medical officers that they themselves must certify that the medical officers functioning in connection with recruiting have received a definite course with regard to army medical examinations and having to do with physical standards necessary in relation to the categorization of records.
I ask permission to put this on the record because the matter has been mentioned to-day, and it ought not to go abroad that medical examinations are being made carelessly.
One other point is with regard to the discharge of those who it was thought would become inefficient soldiers. There were about
5.000.	Steps have been taken with regard to them. In the first place, the regulations have been changed so that the authority for the discharge of personnel rests now not with the commanding officer but with the district officer commanding, so that there will not be
any chance of a commanding officer who simply does not like a chap, or just feels that he does not fit in with the fellows around him or is not as bright as others, allowing him to go as an inefficient soldier. He has to come before the district officer commanding.
Second, instructions have been issued that more care shall be taken in connection with the enlistment of personnel. We enlisted
40,000	in six weeks last June and July, and naturally there was a good deal of crowding in connection with these enlistments. The same care could not be exercised by recruiting officers. Instructions, however, have been issued to recruiting as well as medical officers to ensure a better inquiry into fitness and efficiency in connection with the enlistment of personnel.
Third, district officers commanding have been instructed not to discharge personnel for inefficiency until every effort to make soldiers of them has failed. In the past, too many discharges have taken place because commanding officers felt they knew a better man who could take their places and naturally they were anxious to have a pukka unit, one just a bit above the average.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister give the figures of those discharged from the forces in the different categories?


James Layton Ralston: The Minister of National Defence gave them. Discharged as medically unfit, I gave as between nine and ten thousand. The figure is 10,829.


Howard Charles Green: Does that include the air
force and the navy?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Howard Charles Green: What about them?


James Layton Ralston: I have not those.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister get them?


James Layton Ralston: I am sure the Minister of National Defence for Air and the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services will have them. My coming into the discussion at all is irregular.


Howard Charles Green: We should have that figure too.


James Layton Ralston: My colleague gave the
figures for the army. Those discharged, medically unfit, 10,829; enlisted under age, 1,073; discharged for misconduct, 520. Then there are those discharged for a number of special reasons, the chief of which is, I think, returned to civilian employment. The number is 1,289. Those discharged as not likely to become efficient soldiers number 4,067; those who were appointed to commissions in
Pension Act

the forces and who enlisted in other forces, 331. The grand total is 18,109. The Minister of Pensions and National Health gave all those figures and classified them, showing the period of time they had been in the service before they were discharged. I said that nearly 3,400 had been in the service for less than ninety days-


Howard Charles Green: Can we get the figures for the air force and navy at eight o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Mackenzie before recess with regard to training courses, I have at present only partial information but will get some further information later on. I am informed oy the Department of Labour that applications are received by principals of technical schools as representing the provincial governments. Requests for reports showing the number of returned soldiers accepted for training have been made to all provinces. Some provinces have not shown this fact in the reports received. A figure taken out by the youth training administration showed forty-two ex-soldiers among the 6,000 men now in training schools. This is known to be quite incomplete. The veterans' welfare division had one report from the Edmonton veterans' assistance committee that twelve men had been placed in courses.
The veterans' welfare division has instructed all districts and honorary committees to urge men of appropriate types to apply for courses, but has no returns to show the number applying and the number accepted.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver South asked a question with reference to those medically unfit. I gave those figures earlier in the afternoon. For the army the total number of applications for enlistment from September 1, 1939, to September 30, 1940, was 192,415, of whom 28,316 were rejected as permanently unfit and 7,949 rejected as temporarily unfit.


Howard Charles Green: That is, they were not taken into the army at all?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right. The combined figures represent a rate of 188-47 per thousand, or 18-8 per cent. Subsequently to attestation 3,492 were rejected; that is up to June 1, 1940. This represented 1-2 per cent of the whole.


Howard Charles Green: By rejection, does the minister mean that they were discharged.1 after they had been taken into the army?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, as medically unfit, this small number, 3,492.
The air force took twenty recruiting centres to get the percentage. From August 1 to September 30, 1940, the total examined was 21,311, of whom 5,244 were rejected, or 24-6 per cent.
With regard to the navy I gave some figures earlier in the day. Their figures are concerned with rejections after the men were enlisted. For the period September 1, 1939, to September 30, 1940, thirteen months, the total number discharged as medically unfit was 149, or 12-4 per thousand, of a total strength of 11,973.
I have here two or three tables which show the disabilities-


Howard Charles Green: Before the minister goes
on to that, I asked for the number that had been discharged from the navy and the number discharged from the air force. Can he give those figures?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not have them.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not possible to get
those figures?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes, later on. I shall be glad to ask my colleague for them.
Then it might be of interest to show the various disabilities for which they were discharged.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before
the minister goes into that, if he has not already done so would he be good enough to give the number discharged after having been taken to England?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I gave those figures earlier in the afternoon. There were 909 altogether.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Up to what date?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was up until last week.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
would be what-less than 2 per cent of those who went overseas?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to place these tables on Hansard.

Pension Act
Table "A"



C.A.S.F.

[Stage Direction]
Applicants Rejected as Medically Unfit (Cat. "E") Before Attestation
	(For period 1/9/39 to 30/9/40-	-13 months)		
				Rate per
Per-	Tern-	1,000 ofmanently	porarily	Total	totalDiagnosis	unfit	unfit	unfit	strengthDigestive system	
743	911	1,654	8-6Tuberculosis 	6	982	5-1Ear conditions 	
2.873	333	3,206	16-66Eye conditions	
4.176	2,122	6,298	32-73Respiratory system 	
1.006	122	1,128	5-87Mental conditions	
462	2	464	2-41Feet conditions 	
841	116	957	4-97Heart conditions	
2.401	126	2,527	13-13Injuries (old and new) ...	
695	105	800	4-16Hernia	
1,100	1,244	2,344	12-18Arthritis and rheumatism	
598	20	618	3-21All other conditions ....	
12.445	2,842	15,287	79-45Total 	
28,316	7,949	36,265	188-47
Total applications-192,415.
Table "B"
Air Force
Applicants Rejected at Recruiting Centres as Medically Unfit (Cat. <rE") Before Attestation (For period 1/8/40 to 30/9/40-2 months)
Fitness for flying
Reason for Pe rejection
Poor previous history.. Generally below physical requirements...
Underweight	
Blood pressure outside
of standards set	
Cardio-vascular inefficiency	
Visual	acuity	less
than 6/18	
Visual	acuity	less
than 6/30	
Visual	acuity	less
than 6/60	
Other eye defects	
Defective colour vision.
Defective hearing	
Other ear diseases	
Defective nasal passages	
Other nasal pathology..
Skin diseases	
Gastro-intestinal	
Hernia	
Dental	
Other causes	
or aircrew
Reason for
Ground personnel Permanently Temporarily
Total.
unfit	unfit	rejection	unfit	unfit37	11	Below minimum height.	43	6Below minimum weight.	28	29161	114	Visual acuity less	7	195	than 6/18	39	130Visual acuity less	54	217	than 6/30	72	82Visual acuity less	109	439	than 6/60	71	35Other eye defects	19	1371	78	Defective colour vision.	21	3Hearing and other ear	71	2	defects 	110	52Cardio-vascular disease.	94	16162	6	Nervous system disease.	12	645	55	Skin disease	4	18247	31	Locomotor defects	34	12	(varicoscities) 	28	8539	34	Gastro-intestinal	25	11Hernia	99	011	42	Respiratory diseases...	15	327	34	Dental	6	2156	21	Other causes	87	2544	5	67	0	2	92	105	243	1,039	1,631	Total	773	1,394Complete total	
4,837
Howard Charles Green: Will that show how many have been discharged after enlistment in the air force or the navy?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the air force, yes.


Mr. MARSHALL:: I think a great problem which confronts this government at the present
time is the rehabilitation of those men, discharged from the army, who have not yet been absorbed into employment. This problem was engaging the attention of the government as far back as November of last year. According to order in council P.C. 4068), dated December 8, 1939, there was constituted a special committee of the cabinet whose object was to
Pension Act

give full consideration to and report upon problems which will arise from the demobilization and discharge of members of the forces from time to time during and after the conclusion of the present war, and their rehabilitation into civil life. The problem was a serious one in November of last year, and is becoming more serious as time goes on. A special advisory committee which was set up by the cabinet recommended that a division be created to be known as the veterans' welfare division, the functions of which should be to advise and assist former members of the forces in matters pertaining to reestablishment in civil life, and to perform such other duties as might be prescribed by the Minister of Pensions and National Health relating to the welfare of such former members of the forces. These were the duties which devolved upon the veterans' welfare division:
1.	To establish subdivisions at such points throughout Canada at which the Department of Pensions and National Health maintains offices and/or where the establishment of such subdivisions is deemed to be advisable;
2.	To interview, advise and assist former members of the forces;
3.	To become conversant with all the regulations relating to pensions, allowances, medical treatment-
I need not list all these various duties. The fact remains that they are so vague as to be of no real value, and consequently this problem of the rehabilitation of the ex-service man is not being given the attention it deserves.
I am suggesting that the problem can be dealt with in two ways. There is the long view of the problem and then there is the short view, or what should be done immediately. I should like to have the reaction of the minister to some recommendations appearing on pages 62 and 63 of the report of the veterans' assistance commission of 1937. On page 62 I find this paragraph:
There is a general feeling throughout the country that unemployed war veterans should be accepted as the responsibility of the dominion government. Particularly is this view prevalent amongst provincial and municipal authorities, and among responsible veteran organizations who have to deal with the class of veteran included in this report.
During the recruiting period in Canada many war-time promises were made to the troops by men in public life, no doubt in all sincerity at the time, but it would not be correct to say that all of the promises had been fulfilled.
While I agree that this refers more particularly to the men who were demobilized after the war of 1914-18, it can also be applied

to the situation which presents itself at the present time. Then at page 63 of this report I find this very fine recommendation;
After giving the matter considerable thought and bearing in mind the representation made by organizations throughout the country, by honorary local committees, and information obtained from various sources, the commission has come to the conclusion that it can do no less than recommend that the dominion government accept responsibility for all indigent unemployed veterans who were domiciled in Canada at date of enlistment and who saw service in a theatre of actual war.
In this recommendation the commission suggests that these be dealt with in two groups:
1.	The War Veterans' Allowance Act to be amended to take in a larger number who can prove unfitness, et cetera;
I do hope that when the committee comes to discuss the War Veterans' Allowance Act due consideration will be given to this recommendation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has been carried out to a certain extent since the report was written.
Mr. MARSHALL; Yes; but the second recommendation to which I now come is the one to which I have particular reference:
2.	The remaining number to be taken care of while unemployed by the payment of an allowance to be known as provisional economic allowance.
The minister would not for a moment suggest that this recommendation has been carried out. It was endorsed by the Canadian Legion at one of its annual conventions only a couple of years ago, but thus far no steps have been taken to implement it. To me it is the most important recommendation of all. It goes on:
The basic rate of the provisional economic allowance to be:
Single men, $18.75 per month;
Man and wife, $30 per month.
That is a long range view of the problem, but what should we do with regard to these men at the present time or until this committee meets and brings in definite recommendations? There came to my desk this week a recommendation which I believe is the best I have heard or read thus far. I pass it on to the minister for his consideration, as a method of dealing immediately with the problem of caring for the unemployed discharged men of this war.
I would suggest that each military district set up immediately (and this can be done by telegram in twenty-four hours) a special service company into which would be transferred all men in the category of those being discharged to-day, to remain on strength for some disposition (medical treatment, pension, vocational

Pension Act
training) or to be placed in a lower category where they could be used for military noncombatant service. This set-up would relieve the pressure for the moment and the committee could then deal with future problems at their leisure-
To me that is a constructive suggestion, and I earnestly commend it to the attention of the minister because there is an emergency at the moment. The municipalities, both urban and rural, are not able to cope with the situation as well as they would like on account of these men being returned to the municipalities without any possible means of support. Therefore I would ask the minister if these matters are being considered by his department at the present time and if he intends to take any action in connection therewith.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can assure my hon. friend that every single problem he has mentioned is being fully considered and discussed by one or more of these sub-committees at the present time, and I trust a full description of their activities will be given before a special committee of this house within the next week or two.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I notice that the resolution extends the benefits of this act to certain persons serving in the forces of the United Kingdom. Whom has the minister in mind in that regard? Are there any particular persons or groups? And would he enumerate those included?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That again was discussed this afternoon. It applies to all Canadians serving with the imperial forces who were domiciled in Canada at the time of the outbreak of the present war.


George Hugh Castleden: The resolution also refers to dependents. I believe our experience with the Pension Act in the past would lead to the conclusion that one group of dependents has been seriously neglected. I am referring to the widows of war veterans of the last war. It seems to me that unless some change is made in this regard, the whole thing will be largely an empty gesture. A large part of the suffering it should alleviate will have been neglected. I hope, when the bill deals with the matter, those people will not be forgotten. If it is possible to change existing legislation so as to bring in those who are suffering because they have been excluded from pension schemes of the past, I trust those changes will be made.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Is there any intention of amending our Pension Act so as to take care of imperial pensioners who are domiciled in Canada, or whose people are domiciled here? A great many imperial pensioners are living
in this country. It is most difficult to get any action from the imperial pension board. The application must come to Ottawa, and then must go forward to London. In my constituency there are some of these men who, in my opinion, have been unfairly treated. Their cases are, however, very difficult to handle. Surely there ought to be some way of setting up a joint board which might act in circumstances of this kind. We are in this war; we are partners with Great Britain in this war.
Many of our boys who, before the war, went overseas on cattle boats and lumber boats enlisted in the Royal Air Force on the outbreak of war. They have built up a fine name for themselves, and incidentally for Canada, because they are looked upon as Canadians. I wonder whether something could not be done to coordinate the work of the imperial and the Canadian pension boards, so that consideration might be given to those men, upon their return to Canada, better than was given to those who returned after the last war. Our standard of living is higher; our living costs are higher, and wages are higher. I believe something should be done to work out a scheme between the two countries whereby these men, upon their return, may be a little better off than they would be were they to receive only a pension from the old country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The question raised by the hon. member was raised this afternoon. I said at that time the committee would be glad indeed to discuss the whole situation with reference to imperial soldiers. Of course my hon. friend knows, if there is to be a coordinated arrangement there must be consent of both British and Canadian governments.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Georges Parent: Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) moves that the said bill be now read the second time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, no; just a minute; not so fast. No one has asked for that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Next sitting.


Georges Parent: Next sitting of the house.
1182	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have a little care. This is not the last session, you know.


Ernest Lapointe: Seeing that the bill is going to be considered by a special committee, it would be just as well to send it to the committee right away.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is nice to see the child before it is given too much light.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The bill has not yet been distributed.



DEFENCE OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the appointment of a committee to consider and review the defence of Canada regulations passed under the War Measures Act, and the naturalization and deportation laws.
Howard Charles Green: The resolution now before the house provides for the appointment of a special committee to consider and to review once more the defence of Canada regulations. It also provides for the consideration and review of the law relating to naturalization and to deportation. This evening I intend to confine my remarks to the two last-mentioned subjects, namely, naturalization and deportation.
Last year, too, a special committee was appointed, but it was empowered to deal only with the defence of Canada regulations. May I say, before I proceed further, that I believe every member who served on the committee thoroughly enjoyed the work. It was carried on in a non-partisan way, and. I believe, the committee accomplished good results. All the members came out of the committee very good friends.
In considering the defence of Canada regulations, time and again we encountered questions concerning deportation and naturalization. That is shown by the report brought to the house, a portion of which reads:
Consideration of the defence of Canada regulations relating to enemy aliens raised certain questions which affect the operation of the Naturalization Act and the Immigration Act relating to the naturalization and deportation of aliens.
For example, the provisions of our Immigration Act are such that if the war were to end next week we would have no power under that act to deport a person who had been an enemy alien; no power to deport such a

person even if he were a sworn member of the nazi or the fascist party and planted in Canada for the purpose of acting as a Canadian Quisling, provided he had been in Canada for a period of five years. The reason is that under our Immigration Act he would be considered to have acquired Canadian domicile when he had been in the country for that length of time.
A senior officer of the immigration branch who appeared before the committee admitted this fact, and went on to tell us that at the time of the last war special provisions were made whereby enemies within Canada might be dealt with at the conclusion of the war. He recommended that some such provision be brought into effect at the present .time, and I believe every member of the committee agreed that this would be the proper course to pursue. The situation is obviously unsatisfactory, and in the end, last year's committee recommended that the subject of deportation should be considered by another special committee to be set up in 1941. The resolution now under consideration in my opinion quite properly gives the proposed committee power to consider that subject.
Similarly, the question of naturalization arose in several ways. For example, evidence was given to the committee that enemy aliens had been naturalized in Canada after the outbreak of the war, and had actually received certificates of naturalization, despite the fact that war had broken out between their country and our own.
Then there were cases where certificates of naturalization had been withheld by the Secretary of State but the enemy aliens had been allowed to file applications for naturalization and appear in our naturalization courts to have these applications approved by the naturalization judges. The Canadian public became greatly disturbed over the appearance of enemy aliens in the naturalization courts, believing that this meant that they were to get naturalization certificates. Eventually the senior officer of the Department of the Secretary of State was called before the committee, and from him we learned of what had happened with regard to the naturalization of enemy aliens after the outbreak of the war. Apparently, when the war first broke out, some naturalization judges refused to hear applications for naturalization and some naturalization clerks refused to accept applications. On October 11, 1939, about five weeks after Canada declared war, an order in council was passed which contained this provision:
. . . that applications for naturalization filed by enemv aliens should be received and con-

sidered in accordance with the regular practice prescribed by the Naturalization Act and that the fact that the applicant may be an enemy alien is not in itself to be regarded as a reason why the application should not be entertained, since all applications from enemy aliens will be specially and carefully considered in the Department of the Secretary of State before the issue of a certificate will be sanctioned.
I think that was before the government and perhaps the people of Canada * realized the type of war we were facing. At that time Canada was unaware of the menace of the fifth column. Subsequently came the blitzkrieg. On July 15, 1940, the Secretary of State (Mr. Casgrain) explained the situation in these words, to be found at page 1643 of Hansard of that year:
When I assumed my present office on M ay 10, the invasion of the Netherlands and Belgium had just taken place. The reports which reached us as to the conduct of the so-called fifth column in these countries led me immediately to make a study of the situation in Canada in relation to naturalization.
He went on to say:
I felt it my duty to direct that, for the time being at least, no further certificates of naturalization should be issued to applicants of enemy origin.
In other words, on May 10, there was adopted the policy of withholding naturalization certificates, although applications for naturalization were still being heard. The members of the committee which sat last year felt that this action was creating considerable misapprehension across Canada, and apparently the officials of the Department of *the Secretary of State agreed with us. The department drew up the recommendation in that regard, which will be found in the report of the committee to this house. This report reads:
It is of the opinion that considerable misapprehension has been occasioned by the fact that, although in recent months certificates of naturalization have not been issued by the Secretary of State to aliens of enemy origin, there is no provision which prevents the hearing before the courts of applications from applicants who are of enemy origin.
The report went on to recommend that there should be no further hearings of applications for naturalization by enemy aliens except in cases specifically authorized by the Secretary of State. I find now, however, that this recommendation has not been followed; apparently it has been ignored entirely although, when we left here last August, we understood that all the recommendations of the special committee which sat last year were to be adopted and carried out. Further, it was agreed by officers of the Department of the Secretary of State and by all the mem-
Dejence of Canada-Special Committee
bers of the committee that our naturalization procedure was inadequate and should be revised. We recommended that there should be greater solemnity in connection with naturalization hearings.


Olof Hanson: With regard to naturalization, was not the recommendation of the committee which sat last year that the Secretary of State should deal with each individual application on its merits and issue certificates to those who were entitled to get them?


Howard Charles Green: The complaint of the committee was that applications by enemy aliens were being heard in the naturalization courts. This really did not mean anything, because naturalization certificates were not actually being issued by the Secretary of State, but we felt that for the peace of mind of the Canadian people, instructions should be sent out to the naturalization courts that no further hearings be held of applications by enemy aliens except where the Secretary of State recommended that a hearing be held. Does my hon. friend understand that?


Olof Hanson: Applications by Italian and Japanese subjects should be dealt with on their merits.


Howard Charles Green: This recommendation applied only to Germans and Italians. I was just about to quote the recommendation which was made in connection with naturalization procedure. It was as follows:
That measures should be taken to invest the important step of naturalization with greater solemnity and to impress upon those who apply for the privilege the importance of the obligations which they assume as British subiects.
In addition to making that recommendation, we felt that on the broader ground of national policy the whole question of naturalization was well worthy of consideration by a special committee. We recommended accordingly and the government has seen fit to accept that recommendation. I think it will be admitted by everyone in this chamber that our method of naturalization is far from being the best that could be devised. I believe everyone will admit also that the parliament of Canada has given the subject of naturalization scant consideration in recent years. I know all members will admit that naturalization is and will always be of the greatest importance to Canada because so many of our people have become Canadian citizens and British subjects by way of the naturalization courts. Some of our best citizens and, indeed, some of the leading members of this house are naturalized Canadians. The 1931 census showed that at that time there were in Canada 614.971 naturalized Canadians
1184	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee


Olof Hanson: Including myself.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, and the hon. member is an ornament to this House of Commons. I have great respect for the hon. member for Skeena. He is a good Canadian and I think he deserves great credit.
The census of 1931 shows that we had 507,724 aliens resident in Canada, making a total of more than 1,000,000 foreign-born residents in Canada, the exact figures being 1,122,695. Each year the number is increased. The Canada Year Book for 1940 shows, at page 1070, that in the fiscal year 1938 we acquired by naturalization 27,455 new Canadian citizens, and in the fiscal year 1939, 21,418. As I have said, naturalization is of the greatest importance to Canada.
I think every member of the house will admit that by our methods of naturalization we set for the applicant our standard of citizenship. If our standard is low-I repeat that-if our standard of citizenship is low- and I suggest that judged in this way it is low-how can we expect the applicant for naturalization to place a high value on Canadian citizenship?
I am convinced that there are different ways in which our naturalization methods in Canada could be improved, and I propose to suggest several ways for the consideration of the committee which is to be set up this year. Of course, I do not pretend that these are all the ways or the best ways, but I think they are worthy of consideration.
My first suggestion is that the Canadian government should provide for naturalization schools and for naturalization textbooks. This would have to be done in collaboration with the provincial governments, and I think it could be done if the federal government made up its mind that such a step was necessary. If it were done, applicants for naturalization could learn something of the history of Canada, something of our institutions, something of the ideals of the Canadian people. Let us make such knowledge the basis for granting citizenship in this nation of Canada. At the present time all the knowledge that an applicant must have is an adequate knowledge of English or French, and that provision is interpreted in such a way that he does not even need to	be	able	to	read	either English orFrench. All he has to do, according to the memorandum issued by the department, is to	be	able	to	make	himself understood
[DOT]n either language. That is our present standard of citizenship in this country.
Next I suggest that naturalization judges should be given wider powers. At present 
they can ask only perfunctory questions. Everyone practising law will admit, I think, that the naturalization courts are really naturalization mills. Applicants are crowded in and go through in a jam. There is not the slightest possible chance given to a judge to get down to the real merits of whether or not an applicant is entitled to our citizenship. Give to these judges across Canada, who, after all, are the best people to decide the question, power to question the applicant thoroughly. Make arrangements so that the evidence taken can be kept on record. It is not even kept on record at the present time. Let the judges have a copy, in advance of the hearing, of the confidential report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
As a third suggestion, should we not provide for a more definite declaration of the intention of the applicant for naturalization? Let us investigate most carefully the question whether he has a dual loyalty, whether he is going to be not only a citizen of Canada but also a citizen of some other nation. In other words, is he giving up his former nationality when he assumes our nationality? In some of the provinces, in my own province of British Columbia certainly, that is a most important question.
Another suggestion I would make is that we have a dignified ceremony before a judge when the oath of allegiance is taken by the applicant. After he has been approved by the judge and after his application has been approved by the Secretary of State, let us have a dignified ceremony before a judge in the community in which the applicant resides and in the presence of the leading citizens of that community. Let the oath of allegiance be taken under such conditions, and let the naturalization certificate be presented to the applicant at that ceremony.
How do we carry out the procedure at present? We could not do it more in mailorder fashion than we do at the present time. The Department of the Secretary of State sends a blank oath of allegiance form to the applicant after he has been approved for citizenship. The applicant then goes to the nearest notary public, commissioner or justice of the peace, writes out the oath of allegiance, signs it and swears to it before the official, and sends it back to Ottawa. Then, by post also, he gets his naturalization certificate, which is his admission to citizenship in Canada and to citizenship in the British empire. I suggest that this is a most out-of-date method of doing things.


Olof Hanson: If my hon. friend will allow me, before the Secretary of State

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
sends out to the applicant the oath of allegiance form, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police make an investigation of the fitness of the applicant to become a Canadian citizen.


Howard Charles Green: I realize that there is an investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but even in that connection there is this further defect, that the judge before whom the applicant appears never knows the finding of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. No provision is made for passing their report on to him.
If the suggestions I have made or some such methods are adopted, I am convinced that applicants for naturalization will place a far higher value on Canadian citizenship; so will the Canadian-born people, and so will the members of this house. We too would learn more of the history and of the institutions and ideals of our country. We would think more of just what Canadian citizenship means. But, most important of all, those of us who are already Canadian citizens would take far more interest in the applicants for naturalization-and that is where the people of Canada have fallen down.
I was very much impressed to read in the last issue of Saturday Night an article entitled "New Canadians and Democracy". It referred to a speech made in the Saskatchewan legislature by one of its members of Ukrainian birth, Mr. Orest Zerebko. Among the things he said in that house last year was this.
Loyalty is begotten in the way you treat us, in the way you say "hello" and shake hands on the street.
Another clipping which I cut out of the Ottawa Citizen of June 9, 1938, reported a gathering of new Canadians in Montreal. The occasion was Canadian Allegiance day, when new Canadians previously of other nationalities gathered together; the president of that gathering asked Canadians to be more understanding and to pay more attention to the new Canadians. The report went on to say:
He urged Canadians to extend a "hand of friendship" to "those who simply want the opportunity of making an honest living and to raise their children in a peaceful atmosphere that they might have faith and respect in Canada's future."
We need the help, we need the friendship of these new Canadians at the present time as we have never needed it before. Let us see what steps we can take to get that help and friendship.
I believe that the government could interest many of the clubs across Canada in this subject. It could interest the service clubs. It could interest the Canadian clubs, because I know that the Canadian clubs of British Columbia have already submitted resolutions
for consideration by the special committee which is to be set up to-night; the whole subject of naturalization and of the working out of new methods in respect thereto would appeal to clubs of this type. We could get the greatest help from them. I suggest that the government make an attempt to get that help.
Let me say this in conclusion. The war has focused the attention of the Canadian parliament and of the Canadian people on many aspects of our national life which before were rarely considered. One of these is Canadian citizenship, which includes the question of naturalization. Our people are on the lookout as never before for ways of improving our national life. We in the House of Commons have, therefore, an unusual opportunity to improve our laws and our methods. We have an unusual opportunity to chart new courses for Canada on this and many other subjects. If we approach this question of naturalization in such a spirit, if we have the foresight and the courage to make the necessary changes, I am sure that we shall thereby greatly strengthen the Canadian nation.


Pierre-François Casgrain: At the present time I shall confine my remarks to the question of naturalization. My hon. friend who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Green) made reference to certain applications for naturalization which had been granted after the outbreak of war to persons of enemy alien extraction. If such persons were naturalized after the outbreak of war, the explanation must lie in the fact that applications for such naturalization were made prior to the declaration of war, and in due course, the applications having been examined by the judges, the reports would be submitted to the department and the certificates handed out.
Since I took office I have confined myself exclusively to the application of the law as it stands. As has been quoted from the debate that took place last year, on July 15. as reported at page 1643 of Hansard, I stated on that occasion exactly what the policy of the department had been since my assumption of office on May 10, and since that time this policy has been adhered to quite strictly.
As regards applications which are filed before the courts and which in the opinion of certain people should not be granted at the present time, I think the law will have to be amended if we are to cope with the situation. As the law stands now, any one has a right to make application before a court. The application is considered by the judge and persons appear before the court and testify to the qualifications of applicants to become Canadian citi-
1186	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
zens. If the judge finds all the requirements complied with, everything in order, the report is sent to the Secretary of State; and according to the terms of the act, section 4, subsection 3, it is within the power of the Secretary of State either to grant or to refuse a certificate of naturalization. The law reads:
The grant of a certificate of naturalization to any such alien shall be in the absolute discretion of the minister, and he may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold the certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision.
I may point out that after the report of the judge is received, even if there is a recommendation for consideration by the minister, an investigation can be carried out under the auspices of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Whenever such investigations are held, the reports are submitted to the department, and on the basis of those reports it is decided either to withhold or to grant the certificate.
With regard to the recommendations made last year by the committee which inquired into the defence of Canada regulations, it would have been necessary, had we decided to put them into force at once, to make certain amendments to the law. Take, for example, the recommendation that the Secretary of State be empowered to notify clerks of courts and judges that certain cases should not be proceeded with. That would have necessitated an amendment. As regards the other recommendation, that in special cases the Secretary of State should be empowered1 to impose conditions requiring advertisement of the application in the newspapers, here again an amendment to the law would have been necessary.
As regards solemnity in the granting of certificates of naturalization, so far as I am concerned I am of opinion that possibly later on, when the law is being amended- and this will be done only after the committee has considered the whole subject- the question might be considered of investing the procedure with more solemnity in order to impress new citizens with the obligations they assume on becoming Canadians. I give this as my personal opinion.
All these questions, however, would have involved amendments to the law, and the reason why no amendment was made at the time was that as soon as the committee had concluded its sittings, towards the end of the session, an interdepartmental committee was formed comprising the under-secretary of state, officials of the naturalization branch, and officials of the departments of external affairs and justice. This committee has had a few

sittings and has considered the recommendations of the parliamentary committee. In fact, in the report of the parliamentary committee at the last session, it was recommended that a special committee be appointed "at the next session" to consider and review the law relating to naturalization; and it was thought advisable at the time to wait until this session, when a new committee would be set up, as in fact one is being set up now for review of the regulations with respect to the defence of Canada, to have the whole matter fully discussed by members of all parties and without party politics. It was felt that this would enable us to ascertain the prevailing opinion in the country and to determine exactly what is needed for the proper amendment of the law so as to make it a really Canadian enactment.
Another question must be considered. In all these matters, whenever it is necessary to amend an important law such as naturalization, we should not lose sight of the fact that there is a similar law in the United Kingdom, and we might consider the advisability of bringing our own enactment into conformity with the law there. All this takes time; at the present session a committee will investigate the whole subject, and we shall be able then to proceed with such amendments as may be necessary to make our law more useful to the country and more Canadian in itself.
This resolution should pass as quickly as possible and we should set to work and amend the law as necessary in the interests of all the people of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is the first opportunity most hon. members have had of saying a few words about the defence of Canada regulations. I for one am very glad that a special committee of the house is going to have them under consideration during this session.
I begin by saying most categorically that I am opposed to these regulations in their present form. I am also opposed to the manner in which they have been administered.


Olof Hanson: For what reason?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is just what I am going to speak about if the hon. member will be patient.
The other day. speaking on this resolution, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) asked the question: "Are regulations necessary?" I begin by answering that question in the affirmative; regulations most certainly are necessary. Anyone who has made even a small study of the nazi system of infiltration and what is commonly known as the fifth column knows that a country at war with
MARCH 3, 1941	H87
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
the nazi and fascist powers must take every necessary step to prevent itself from being honeycombed by those inside who would cause our people to lose faith in themselves and in one another and in our democratic way of life. We in this group have never at any time objected to there being defence of Canada regulations. The Minister of Justice knows that quite well. What we have objected to is, first, that the procedure set out for taking steps against persons who are enemies of the state is not such as to safeguard and protect the civil liberties of our people; and, second, that these regulations are so vague in their terminology as to make it possible, as I think I can show, for discrimination to be shown against innocent persons.
The minister made an impassioned speech the other day. He said that he was only doing his duty and that as long as he holds the position he now holds he would do his duty according to the regulations given to him by parliament. I suggest that parliament has never had an opportunity to review those regulations. It is true that a small committee of parliament went over them last year and made some recommendations as to changes, but even that report was not a unanimous one, and parliament itself did not pass those regulations and has had no suitable opportunity to discuss them or place them on the statute books as representing the opinion of the people of Canada in general.
Our objection is not to the regulations but to the fact that the procedure is not clearly outlined and that there are loopholes so that the people are not properly safeguarded. Those regulations lend themselves to being used, and have been used sometimes, to repress criticism, to put out of the way people who perhaps were a nuisance to someone, and to take steps against people who perhaps were not popular in certain quarters.
I enjoyed the speech made by the minister the other evening on the appropriation bill. He gave three reasons why this country was fighting; I think every hon. member agreed with him. The first was individual freedom; the second, freedom of national groups to develop their culture and traditions, and the third, that we were fighting for the liberty of Christian faith. May I, however, suggest to the Minister of Justice that we are in danger of undermining some of these things right here in Canada. We cannot defend those things abroad unless we exercise eternal vigilance in preserving them at home.
Take the first, the freedom of the individual. Under these regulations we have taken from the private citizen of Canada something that has come to him or her down thro.ugh the
centuries under British institutions, namely, the right of habeas corpus. We have taken from individuals the right to know why they are being detained; we have taken away the right of a newspaper to know why it is suppressed, the right of an organization to know why it has been declared illegal and banned. Even in Great Britain, where they were much closer to the vortex of the war last summer than we, where the danger from the large number of refugees who had filtered in from the European continent was much more real, they have not gone as far as we have in taking away the right of habeas corpus. May I read part of regulation 21 and compare it with the analogous British regulation:
21. (1) The Minister of Justice, if satisfied that with a view to preventing any particular person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state it is necessary so to do, may notwithstanding anything in these regulations make an order
(c) directing that he be detained in such place and under such conditions as the Minister of Justice may from time to time determine.
The British regulation corresponding to that is No. 18B. This is a regulation which the British parliament insisted upon. Although they had had a regulation similar to the one we have, they would not stand for it. Their regulation reads:
18B. (1) If the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe any person to be of hostile origin or association or to have been recently concerned in acts prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the realm or in the preparation or instigation of such acts and that by reason thereof it is necessary to exercise control over him, he may make an order against that person directing that he be detained.
In other words, they have there a regulation by which those ordering a man's detention must show cause why he is detained, and he must have done something, recently, prejudicial to the state or must be of alien origin or association.
This is a most serious matter. I do n-ot know to what extent the Minister of Justice is familiar with just how this is applied in some parts of the country, but on November 28 last, I drew the attention of this house to the case of a man named Florian Stephan of Regina. Since it is on Hansard I shall not go back over the case in detail, but there have been some developments since. This man was a member of the executive of the relief recipients' organization.	The relief
committee of the Regina city council offered to meet the executive of the relief recipients. They met in a room, just a committee from the council and a committee from the relief recipients and a couple of representatives from
88	COMMONS
Defence oj Canada-Special Committee
the provincial government. The relief recipients stated their case and their grievances. There is already on record, I placed it there, the verbatim report of what this man Stephan said. I pick out the only sentence to which the crown objected and on which the whole case was predicated. He said:
I know, and everybody knows, that since this war we-
Meaning the common people, the relief recipients.
have been pinched, and millions made by certain people in the war.
On the basis of that statement two members of the Regina city council made a charge against this man under the defence of Canada regulations; he was arrested, thrown into gaol, finger-printed, tried, found guilty and fined.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Good.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My hon.
friend says "good". Of course that is exactly the type of mentality which gave Hitler his support in Germany.


Mr. DUPLIS:: The hon. member would not talk that way if Hitler were here.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: No, but I am prepared to talk that way to anyone here;
I shall be prepared to go and talk to Hitler as soon as I get a chance, and I hope my hon. friend will be with me.
This man's case was appealed. I read very carefully the evidence presented at that appeal. In summing up, the judge could not find a single statement of a subversive character made by the man; he could not find anything that had been said which might be calculated to cause disaffection. But he dismissed the appeal and left the charge against this man because, he said, "It has been known for some time that he is an agitator." An agitator! This man is convicted because somebody says he is an agitator, without a shred of proof or of evidence. If that is to be true, any person can be branded by merely labelling him an agitator. I remember that in the last war certain people called the Minister of Justice an agitator, but no one suggested that he should be arrested and put in a concentration camp. Any person in this house might be labelled an agitator by some opponent or any one who had reason to disagree with him.
If we allow a man to be convicted merely because someone has labelled him an agitator, then we have started along a very serious path in the Dominion of Canada.
The other day the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) raised the question of a newspaper, the Canadian Tribune.
I understand that this paper was suppressed, 
and that when the editor made application to learn why it had been suppressed, what particular thing it had said to which objection was taken, there was no answer. He was not allowed to learn why it had been suppressed; it was just suppressed. I do not agree with the Canadian Tribune. Its last issue contained a most scurrilous and false editorial against the group with which I am associated; but I agree with Voltaire, who said, "I disagree most heartily with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it." I submit that no regulations and no minister of the crown shall have the right to incarcerate an individual or to suppress a newspaper without showing cause why that step should be taken.
I noticed that in his eloquent speech the other day, the Minister of Justice did not reply to some of the questions asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. One question, for instance, was why the pamphlet containing speeches by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) had been seized by the mounted police; and our acting leader read a receipt given by the mounted police for the pamphlets that had been seized.


Vincent Dupuis: The hon. member for North Battleford is able to defend herself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not defending the hon. member for North Battleford; she certainly does not need it. I am dealing with an infringement of the civil liberties of the people of Canada, particularly with reference to a member of this house; and as yet no explanation has been given by any minister of the crown as to why these pamphlets were seized. Probably every member of this house has seen one of these pamphlets.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It was so terrible!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) can produce a better one, I shall be glad to see it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will when the hon. member has finished.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker, when a home can be raided and a pamphlet containing speeches, all of which can be found in the records of the Canadian House of Commons, are seized as though it were some piece of vile or salacious literature. Surely this house has a right to some sort of explanation, but so far none has been forthcoming.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: I should like to ask the hon. member if he is

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
endeavouring to argue that because a thing may be said in this house, with all the privileges that attach to parliamentary statements, the same thing may be repeated outside this house with the same privileges.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister knows perfectly well that is not what I was arguing; but every speech contained in this pamphlet was delivered in this house, and neither the minister who just spoke nor any other hon. member opposite took particular exception to them. If in this house anything was said that was so subversive that some person's house had to be raided in order to procure copies of it, certainly some objection would have been advanced in this house by the government, but no objection was raised. Nothing was said; yet the police break into somebody's house to collect these harmless pamphlets. One may not agree with what is in them, but certainly some reason should be given for their seizure.
The Minister of Justice says we are fighting for the freedom of the individual. We are; but most certainly we have no right to ask individuals in Canada to give up those liberties which have come down to them through the centuries, some of which most certainly are being infringed upon at the present time under the administration of these regulations.
The second thing for which the Minister of Justice said we were fighting was the freedom of national groups to develop their culture and traditions. That is true. Those hon. members who had the privilege of seeing the two or three motion pictures put out by the national film board last Thursday, must have been impressed by the picture called "The People of Canada," showing as it did the different racial groups which have come from all parts of the world to make up the Canadian people. They must have been impressed by the fact that these heterogeneous groups have been welded together by two things-freedom and tolerance. That is what we want in Canada; yet I would point out that we have denied to some of these groups the very thing for which the minister says we are fighting, the right to develop their culture and traditions. I refer, for instance, to the Ukrainian labour group. There may be among the Ukrainian labour group unpatriotic leadership of which I do not know; there may be some men or women in that organization who are not acting in the best interests of Canada, and if there are such persons they should be dealt with. But I am familiar with a great many branches of the Ukrainian labour organization, which constitutes for the Ukrainian people a cultural home, a place where they meet together in order to keep
alive their culture, their language and their traditions. I submit that we are not helping the cause of Canada by declaring that to be an illegal organization.
The third thing for which the minister said this country was engaged in war was the liberty of Christian faith, and surely we will all agree with him there. But the liberty of what Christian faith? I took it to mean the right for the minister to worship his Creator the way he thinks fit and best; and my right to do the same in the way I think right and best. But in this Dominion of Canada, almost before the war was on its way, we declared to be an illegal organization a sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses.


Mr. BRADETTE:: And rightly so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not agree with either the theological or the eschatological views of that sect; but because I do not agree with their particular religious views, I do not see why I must deny those people the right to worship their Maker in the way they think He ought to be worshipped. Yet that is what we have done, and not only to Jehovah's Witnesses. It has been done to an organization known as Technocracy Incorporated, having in its membership thousands of people with whose views most of us do not agree. No reason has, however, been given why that organization should be declared an illegal one.


Mr. MARTIN:: Incipient fascists.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member says they were incipient fascists. Perhaps they were. But has that ever been proven in any court of law? Has any evidence been presented? Was that organization permitted to go into a court of law and present its case? Has any evidence been presented before the Canadian people? Certainly not.
The communist party was banished. Few organizations have suffered more at the hands of the communist party than the group with which I am associated.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Not always. I have seen them parading together in northern Ontario- Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and communist. Yes, I have.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Many of us have seen you and the fascists pretty close together in your section, too.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have seen communists and C.CJYs. together.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You must have a funny country up there.
1190	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee


James Lester Douglas: That is the country where they try to get Italian fascists out of the internment camps.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: They do that because they are innocent. I wish the hon. member to withdraw what he has said. I went before the courts of this country, and the man was proved to have been innocent. I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement.


James Lester Douglas: I made no oharge, and I do not propose to withdraw my statement.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member
imputed motives.


Georges Parent: I did not hear the statement; but if the hon. member did impute motives, then he will have to withdraw his
statement.


James Lester Douglas: I imputed no motives and made no charge.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes, the hon. member did. He said I went before the courts fighting for some people who I knew were fascists.


An hon. MEMBER:: No; he did not.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I want those words to be withdrawn. I am just as good a Canadian as is the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think
Hansard will support what I say.
The point I was making was this, that at the time we profess to be fighting a battle in the interests of Christian principles, we are allowing organizations and sects which may not be popular in this country-


Olof Hanson: I doubt very much if the hon. member is a Christian, although he preaches Christianity.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It may not be a very large section of our public; but we are banning these organizations, without giving them any opportunity to defend themselves. We are merely saying to them, "You are illegal organizations," and we say to the individual, "If you continue as a member of this organization you render yourself capable of punishment by law."
We believe the regulations ought to be altered so as to give those people an opportunity of appearing before some judicial or quasi-judicial body, so that they may state their case and have a hearing. That is the very least we can give to any organization or individual.
I have one further word to say, and it has to do with money belonging to organizations which have been declared illegal. I made reference to one of them the other day.

I understand the money in such an organization is turned over to the custodian of enemy property. That seems to me a most unfair procedure, particularly if some of the funds of siuch an organization happen to belong to the rank and file of the people. I have in mind a man who some years ago lent a considerable sum of money to the sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses.


Ernest Lapointe: He made a poor investment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The loan
was made long before that sect was considered an illegal organization. They were paying him back at the rate of so much a month, or on what might be described as an annuity basis. Along came the war, and the organization was declared to be illegal. Its funds, amounting to $75,000, were seized and turned over to the custodian of enemy property. What is the position of that individual? What crime has he committed?
The Minister of Justice said a moment ago that he made a poor investment. Probably he did make a poor investment; but why is he to be punished because the organization-


Ernest Lapointe: That
was not a statement for publication.
' Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn): I am sorry.


Arza Clair Casselman: It was under your breath.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why is this man to be punished because the organization to which he lent money has been banned by the Minister of Justice? Surely that is most unfair. That money goes to the custodian of enemy property. But the man who lent the money is not an enemy; he is a Canadian citizen, born in Canada. He must, however, wait until the end of the war to get the money which he lent in good faith to an organization which had given him a written guarantee that it would pay him back at the rate of so much a month.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He will know something about the law of delays before be gets his money.


James Lester Douglas: And he may know some privation before he gets it, too.
I submit that in studying these regulations the committee ought to give serious consideration to matters of this kind. Ever since the war began, we in this group have insisted not that the laws of this country be made easier for saboteurs and fifth columnists, but that they should 'be made harder for such people. No country can be too hard on any man or woman who, having accepted the pro-

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
tection and benefits of that country, seeks to undermine it. At the same time, however, we demand that steps to be taken under these regulations shall be defined so clearly that they cannot be abused, so that next week a man like Florian Stephan cannot be arrested because he said something an aider-man did not like, so that pamphlets cannot be seized because someone does not like what is inside them, whether it is subversive or not.
We in this group contend that freedom is precious, and we know that down through the years men have given their lives to pass it on to us. We know that even to-day in various parts of the world men are shedding their blood to keep freedom alive. We in this parliament cannot treat lightly our responsibility to see to it in this country of ours that freedom shall not perish from the earth.


Mr. J. G. TURGEON (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every hon. member rising to speak respecting the defence of Canada regulations must do so only after hesitation. Upon rising to address you to-night, I am worried lest any words of mine might unintentionally add fuel to the fires of discontent which since the commencement of the war have been in process of creation in Canada.
I intend to deal frankly with statements made respecting the defence of Canada regulations and the manner in which they have been administered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). First of all, like every other hon. member I listened to-day to the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and noted the strong emotions he displayed because a newspaper in this city had questioned his motives. Every hon. member sympathized with him, as we would sympathize with any hon. member whose motives are questioned. But almost every man, whether from his seat across the floor at that angle, or speaking outside, in connection with the defence of Canada regulations, questions the motives of the right hon. Minister of Justice. By word of mouth the public are being told that the Minister of Justice is an honest man, a man in whom everyone has confidence. Yet from the Atlantic ocean to the Pacific, charges have been made time after time that not only are these defence of Canada regulations abominable in themselves, but they have been administered by the right hon. Minister of Justice in such a manner as to inflict hardship upon men who cannot defend themselves.
I intend to return to this matter later on, but as one who was a member of the defence of Canada regulations committee which sat last session may I pay tribute to every individual who was on that committee? I listened to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar when he spoke the other day, as I did to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) when he spoke this evening. I should like to deal first with what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said. Let me repeat that the members of this committee worked as no other committee of which I have been a member ever worked. The members tried honestly in every possible way to reach conclusions. I firmly believe they were trying to reach conclusions which would prove to be of benefit to the people of this country. May I point out that every suggestion for a lessening of the severity of the regulations did not come from members of the new political groups. On nearly every occasion a member from some party wanted to lessen the severity of these regulations.
Speaking a few days ago, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar directed nearly all his remarks to one fact. He found fault with the Minister of Justice because out of twenty-four cases where the review committee had recommended release, in nine cases the recommendation had not been accepted by the minister. The hon. member felt that this action was an imposition upon the people of Canada. The defence of Canada regulations committee dealt for many hours with section 22 which provides for the setting up of these review committees. This section also provides the means by which a person detained under section 21 or by order of the Minister of Justice may make his objections heard and secure his release if release is coming to him. The committee recommended certain changes, and these were all carried out and made the law of the land by an order in council passed under authority of the War Measures Act.
In all its discussions, no member of the committee suggested that responsibility should be lifted from the Minister of Justice and placed upon the review committee. This matter was not even debated, and yet the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar bases almost the whole charge that he made against the administration of the defence of Canada regulations upon the fact that some of the recommendations of the review court were not put into effect by the Minister of Justice. As a matter of fact, one of the features of the defence of Canada regulations most severely
1192	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
condemned by some of the members of the parliamentary committee was this setting up of a review committee of one man. We were told with some degree of justice that no one-man committee, even though the member held a high judicial position in the past, or was a justice at the moment, could properly investigate and render judgment in connection with men who were interned under these regulations. Yet we are told to-day that the Minister of Justice, a member of the government of Canada, should divest himself of responsibility and give it to this one-man committee, which was perhaps the most severely condemned of all the defence of Canada regulations.
I noticed the other day when the Minister of Justice followed the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, he complimented that hon. member upon the fact that at no time had he put forth the thought: Why should we fight for democracy abroad when we are losing democracy at home? The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made no such reference. I have here, however, a Vancouver paper dated January 6 in which is to be found an article by a member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, a member of the legislature of British Columbia. I may say this is not the same member referred to the other day by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). Perhaps I may be permitted to digress for a moment and say that this legislator would not make the type of speech exposed in this house the other day by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Olof Hanson: Who is he?


James Gray Turgeon: Mrs. Jamieson. In
commenting upon the defence of Canada regulations, she completed her argument with these words:
Why does the Canadian government not follow suit? Because it fears that by its own policies it has lost the loyalty of these men; and so they are lost to Canadian industry and the Canadian war effort. And as the public sees more arbitrary internments, more convictions on flimsy charges, and intimidations of labour unions, men ask themselves: "What is the use of fighting for democracy abroad, when we are losing it every day at home?" This attitude, induced by Canadian war regulations, loses the war abroad, and is dangerous both to democracies and to Canada.
She was referring to what had taken place in Great Britain, and I shall have a word or two to say about that in answering the hon. member for Weyburn. The hon. member made reference to the communist party and he got into somewhat of an altercation with the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). The other day the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made a similar reference

to the communist party, but he said that he held the communist party in contempt. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I believe him when he says that he holds them in contempt, 'but I am dealing with an argument and as it was applied to public opinion in this country. He gave as his reason for holding them in contempt the fact that in spite of the attitude which the communist party had taken with regard to the war against Germany prior to the actual outbreak of the war, after Great Britain was at war, instead of participating in the effort of the people of the British isles and the British commonwealth, the communist party stated that this was a war of imperialism abroad brought about by capitalism.
Unfortunately, we have heard those very words in Canada. Unfortunately, we have heard them in British Columbia, and in spite of the fact that my hon. friends across the aisle say that no political party is a greater target for the communists than they, it was prominent members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party who made statements with regard to this being an imperialistic war and one brought about naturally by acts of capitalism for many years before the war started. I mention that not for purposes of recrimination, but because I notice that every time some people in Canada make an attack on the defence of Canada regulations, they immediately start to dissociate themselves from the communists and to say that the whole object which the Minister of Justice and those associated with him have in the administration of these regulations is the coercion of labour, and they immediately say, as the hon. member for Weyburn said to-night, that they are a target for the communist party.
May I digress to suggest first of all that if my hon. friends over there are at outs with the communist party, if the communist party is taking pot-shots at them, it is, I feel certain, only the natural instinctive reaction of one group that is angry at another group whose objectives are the same as its own but who are taking a different path to reach those objectives; and that animosity exhibited by the communist party towards my hon. friends over there is in complete alignment with the animosity expressed by my hon. friends themselves towards the Unity reform party composed of the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mrs. Nielsen). The hon. member for Weyburn to-night and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar the other day stated that the Canadian Tribune, on whose behalf both these hon. members raised a word of protest in this house, had attacked the Cooperative

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
Commonwealth Federation party and that, in
spite of that, they were defending the Canadian Tribune.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not defending
the Canadian Tribune, but objecting to its being suppressed without a hearing.


James Gray Turgeon: If my memory serves me aright, the hon. member for Weyburn said to-night that the Canadian Tribune had made a scurrilous attack upon his particular group. So far as I know-of course there may be some editorials I have not seen-that scurrilous attack of the Canadian Tribune upon the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party was because of the alleged neglect with which the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party were treating the hon. member for North Battleford. That editorial said, for instance, that some professor or other whose name I forget, had expressed sympathy with the Canadian Tribune but could not understand its attitude towards the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and the editorial in question went on to refer to the meeting held by the hon. member for North Battle-ford in the city of Vancouver and asked why it was that the Federationist, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation organ in Vancouver, had paid so little attention to the meeting of the hon. member for North Battleford.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, a sort of Christmas and New Year's message given to the people of Canada last December by Mr. Lewis, secretary of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation National Council. I took it from the Federationist of Vancouver, which carries the message under a heading reading as follows:
"United Farmers, Workers, Would Preserve Democracy"-"Reports C.C.F. Organized Labour Unity in Montreal City Council Campaign" by David Lewis, Secretary, C.C.F. National Council.
Then follows the message:
Canadian Reaction Exploits War
The past fifteen months have shown that in our country the war is being exploited by reaction for its own needs. Our democracy is threatened by the defence regulations; a determined anti-labour drive is under way; monopolistic interests are being handed even more complete control of our economic life.
I have here-and I know I am not the only member who has seen it-the report of the proceedings of the fifty-sixth annual convention of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. It is quite probable that my very good friend the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was present at this convention. I wish to take a minute or two for the purpose of commending to the people
of Canada the stand taken by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada with regard to the defence of Canada regulations and the manner in which they are being administered by the right hon. Minister of Justice. At page 47 of the report of the proceedings at their annual convention in 1940, I find under the heading "Defence of Canada Regulations," an expression of complete approval of the defence of Canada regulations and of the manner in which they are being administered. I cite this paragraph from among others:
The officers of the congress have sought assurances that no action taken has been because of membership in a trade union or the carrying out of legitimate trade union duties. So far we have failed to find any evidence of this having been done and it would be contrary to labour's principles to claim that any person should receive preferential treatment in the application either of the defence of Canada regulations or of any law of Canada merely because he is a member of a trade union or any other group or class of society.
Another part of the report says:
In all countries at war it has been found necessary to sacrifice personal liberty to some degree as the price to be paid for national security. The defence of Canada regulations, which follow closely those put into effect in Great Britain at the outbreak of war-
These are not my words but those of a formal resolution of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.

give wide powers to proceed against persons or associations without resort to ordinary peace-time procedures of the laying of charges and formal public trial. The denial of these long cherished liberties is held to be essential to enable government authorities to act with promptitude and secrecy.
All through their discussions will be found arguments made before the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada similar to those which have been made in this house and made by some members of this house outside it; and in the report of their proceedings I find every such argument answered, argument for argument, by the leaders of the Trades and Labour Congress. The report also carries the formal resolution of approval by the congress of the defence of Canada regulations and expressing confidence in the administrator of those regulations, the right hon. Minister of Justice-all of it indelibly impressed by means of a formal resolution of approval by the congress.
Yet ever since then, public men-and naturally I am not saying anything against men in public life-state day after day that the whole purpose of the regulations and their administration is the coercion, economic, social and political, of labour and other classes

ri94	COMMONS
Dejence oj Canada-Special Committee
in Canada. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the other day, addressing the Minister of Justice, said: "If you are looking for subversive elements, don't keep always in the gutter". Let me ask hon. members who are denouncing the regulations and their administration: Do those things that have been done, things which are known to us here tonight, indicate that the Minister of Justice and those working with him are looking in the gutter? Was it in the gutter that they found Mr. Camillien Houde. a member of the legislature of Quebec, a former leader of a political party in that province and, at the moment of his detention, mayor of the largest city in Canada? Was it in the gutter that they found the great Italian patriot Mr. Franceschini when he was put in the internment camp? Petitions have been signed, I understand, asking for the release of this gentleman.	My hon. friends should talk
about looking in the gutter or above it to those who are making these demands upon the Minister of Justice asking him to release some people who are detained purely because those who are responsible for administering the regulations, those who are responsible for the safety of Canada, feel that it is in the interests of the country that these men should remain in detention.
I am going to deal now not with the regulations themselves but with the nature of the attacks made upon the regulations. I have here the speech mentioned to-night by the hon. member for Weybum. He said that nobody in this house had ever taken exception to any of the speeches made by the member for North Battleford. I have here a speech on the budget delivered at the last session on July 2. It will be found at page 1263 of Hansard. The hon. member for North Battle-ford spoke on that occasion and I wish to give one or two quotations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did the hon. member attack them at the time as subversive?


James Gray Turgeon: I never did. My hon. friend says that this particular group has never opposed the defence of Canada regulations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not say anything of the kind. I said that we have never opposed the idea of having regulations.


James Gray Turgeon: I say that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation did oppose the idea of having defence of Canada regulations, that they opposed the idea of the proclamation of the WTar Measures Act; and the Cooperative Commonwealth party in British Columbia-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Two different things.


James Gray Turgeon: The defence of Canada regulations find their very root in the War Measures Act. My hon. friend knows that; and yet that group, he says, have never opposed the regulations in principle. I say that they have opposed the regulations in principle and opposed the statute upon which they are based.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I must correct the hon. gentleman. At no time have I said that we never opposed the defence of Canada regulations. My party never at any time opposed the idea of having regulations for the defence of Canada, but we contended that they should be passed by this parliament and not by order in council under the War Measures Act.


James Gray Turgeon: I do not like to do this, but I have here a copy of the Federalionist, which my bon. friend will admit is the organ of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in British Columbia. It is for March, 1940, and it is headed, "Cariboo Edition". On the front page there is an article by William Irvine who is a member of the national council of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Under his own by-line on the front page of the Cariboo edition of the Federalionist he says: "A vote for Mr. Turgeon is a vote for the padlock law"- I do not know where he got that-"and for the War Measures Act". What has my friend to say about that?


James Lester Douglas: Opposition to using the War Measures Act whereby orders in council can be brought down putting into effect regulations that parliament has never seen is totally different from being opposed to any type of regulation to defend the realm.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The defence of Canada regulations were passed when he made that statement.


Mr. DOLTGLAS (Weybum):: Yes, and they were passed by order in council under the War Measures Act and this parliament never saw them except indirectly.


James Gray Turgeon: The hon. member and other members of his group, time after time, rise in their places and state that the whole objective of the regulations is labour. They sometimes apply it to the British Labour party, and then they talk of labour in general. I have just read to the house a formal resolution passed last September by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada with regard to the defence of Canada regulations, and

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
they had not been discussed in this house, though they had been thoroughly discussed in that committee. May I speak a word of approval of the Minister of Justice. I say that every single recommendation of that committee relating to the defence of Canada regulations was accepted and carried out by the government of which the right hon. gentleman is Minister of Justice. Without exception, every recommendation that committee made was carried out. The hon. member for North Battleford, speaking on the budget, after calling attention to excess profits tax and that sort of thing, and people who have money, said:
But of course that capital is something in the nature of a golden calf set up in our country, something we are forbidden to touch. That is a precedent which has been created, one which even in this time of crisis the government is going to continue to protect. Our men must suffer; they must give their lives. Our people must toil unremittingly. They will be forced to accept wages set for them. They will be forced to accept conditions, under the defence of Canada regulations. Yet at the same time the conditions I have described will go on.
Is that a proper criticism to make and to scatter broadcast throughout the country against the defence of Canada regulations?
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn); Is it subversive ?


James Gray Turgeon: Let the hon. member
ask himself that question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I say it is
not subversive.


James Gray Turgeon: I am not saying it is subversive. I am not saying anything about any action against the hon. member for North Battleford. As a matter of fact, I would sincerely hope that no action would be taken against the hon. member. I am talking now about appeals to the people of Canada in this time of stress, this time of war, based upon such things as the defence of Canada regulations.
There is no one in this house who is more anxious than I am to see people who are distressed, particularly the farming population of western Canada, relieved from their position.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member's
works do not prove it.


James Gray Turgeon: There is no man who
has been a more forcible and consistent advocate of those distressed farmers than I have. The difference is that I am not trying to exploit their distress. I am not looking for publicity simply because in this country there are people in distress. I am doing as a member of parliament everything that I can to see that those who, after all, have the right 14873-76J
of initiation of measures in this house, do proceed along lines that will bring relief to those in distress. But if I had to depend for political success upon a race for supremacy in the leadership of the exploitation of that distress, then I would wish to retire from this parliament.
One more quotation I should like to make from the speech of the hon. member for North Battleford in the budget debate. It is this:
In my opinion there is no reason why the people should have to believe these things any longer. I wonder how long it will be before the people really realize the unnecessary burden which the government has put upon them. I cannot think it will be very long. I believe the government realized months ago that during this war crisis the people's wisdom and natural understanding of things would come to their aid and that they would rebel against unjust legislation and the unjust burden of taxation which might be placed upon them. This government had the defence of Canada regulations prepared which are instruments of coercion to be used in the future upon our Canadian people.
Is that taking active steps to relieve the distressed people whose position is pitiful as well as tragic, telling them from this parliament that the defence of Canada regulations have been devised and designed and are being administered for the purpose of coercing them into accepting policies of this government which they have just been told are the cause of the unfortunate condition under which they live?
I do not intend to take any more time. I said at the beginning that I hesitated, to speak lest any words of mine should add fuel to the fires of discontent which have been started since the beginning of the war. I wish to end with an appeal to those who have been dealing with the defence of Canada regulations in the manner which I have described. _ Nothing is perfect; God knows this administration is not perfect; there are many acts of the government which can and should be criticized. But why must every criticism of the government be tied up to the defence of Canada regulations? Why must every deplorable condition existing among the people be brought back to some design of this government anxious-not to win the war-anxious only, they tell us, by means of these regulations, to perpetuate economic and social distress among certain portions of our people?
What I ask is that from now on, those who speak of distress should deal with it without mentioning the defence of Canada regulations, and they should deal with the defence of Canada regulations in the manner in which they would deal with any other matter that was the subject of discussion. To-night, for example, the hon. member for Weyburn dealt
1196	COMMONS
Defence oj Canada-Special Committee
with the regulations in effect in Great Britain. He mentioned some parts of section 18. But he did not read one part of that section. He spoke of the banning of societies. In Canada, while the governor in council has the right to declare an organization illegal, neither the Minister of Justice nor anyone else has the right to detain a person purely because he was at some time a member of a banned organization. Before a person can be detained under our regulations, he must continue to be a member of the association that has been banned. In Great Britain, on the other hand, the Home Secretary, corresponding to the Minister of Justice here, may pick up an individual in the British isles simply because, no matter how many years back, he had been a member of an organization that since then has been banned.
Mention was made the other day of the detention of a member of the British House of Commons. It is true that member was a fascist, as those who have been picked up in Quebec were fascists. If the defence of the realm regulations permit the Home Secretary to detain a member of the House of Commons, on what is the argument based that those regulations are less onerous than those in effect in Canada?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Because the minister must show cause.


James Gray Turgeon: They act in the same way. The one case with which the hon. member dealt particularly to-night was that of a man who had been taken to court, and the hon. member was criticizing the judgment of a court, not an act of administration. He may have been right; I have no knowledge of the facts; but the man was tried, not in a special court, but in the ordinary court of justice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was criticizing the vagueness of the regulations that permitted a conviction on such flimsy evidence.


James Gray Turgeon: I suggest that the hon. member study the regulations a little further.
It is no use hiding facts from ourselves; it is true that under the defence of Canada regulations some of, our liberties are impaired. Is there any hon. member who will say that some of our liberties should not be impaired, having before us what has taken place in various countries in Europe? But this I say, that constitutional parliamentary government will never lose its supremacy merely as a result of deliberate parliamentary action. I say further that those sacred liberties which have come down to us, bought by the blood of our forefathers, particularly of those who come from the British isles, will never be lost

to us simply because of our voluntary giving up of a little of that liberty to-day until the war is won and Canada, Great Britain, Greece and those allied with us stand as victors.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: In rising to speak briefly on this resolution, I do so because this year I shall not be a member of the committee that is being set up to consider what changes, if any, should be made in the defence of Canada regulations as recommended last year by the committee set up by parliament in that behalf.
I have listened with attention to the address just delivered by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon), but I do not intend to follow him in the controversy in which he became engaged. The position I take in reference to the defence of Canada regulations, and the spirit in which I think they should be considered in this house, is to seek to ensure that maximum freedom is assured and maintained to British subjects consistent with the safety of the state. Having regard to what took place in France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway, all are agreed that strict regulations are necessary in order to ensure that subversive elements within this country shall not be permitted to carry on their nefarious work of undermining the state from within during the war.
That is one consideration which must be kept before us at all times, irrespective of any diminishing that may take place so far as those rights are concerned that are considered inalienable, namely, that the safety of the state shall be paramount. No one can deny that many of the rights which are and have been ours as British subjects for generations have, by reason of the exigencies of war, been curtailed in the interests of the safety of the state. Much is made of the fact that the right to the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is now denied, and that the prerogative right of a certiorari has been taken away. Both of these are extraordinary remedies designed to assure the rights of the subject, but it must not be forgotten that in time of war the safety of the state is of first importance.
Having approached the subject from that point of view-and on that I think we are all in agreement-the question naturally arises as to what changes can be made in the defence of Canada regulations which, while assuring the safety of the state, at the same time will assure the rights of the individual. I am not entering into the argument so often raised, that in this dominion to-day men are being imprisoned without

Defence of Canada-Special Committee
due process of law or that the rights which ordinarily British subjects heretofore possessed have been taken away. But I do point out, Mr. Speaker, that all over this dominion fears are being expressed by loyal and patriotic British citizens and subjects that certain persons have been interned who ought not to have been interned. In making that statement, I am merely expressing an argument that is being advanced on every hand to-day. I do not suggest in the least that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is not fairly discharging the responsibilities of his position. The point I make is that the argument is being advanced that all is not well. That sort of thing engenders fear, and fear results in disunity within the country.
Some argument has been advanced that these regulations, not 'having 'been passed by [DOT]parliament or debated by parliament in detail, as a consequence have been foisted on the people of this country, if I may use that expression. In my view, that argument is not well founded. Last year the government brought before parliament a resolution calling for the creation of a committee of parliament to look into the situation and determine what regulations, if any, should be instituted or what amendments should be made. The committee that was set up, composed of members of all parties in this house, in the main agreed on the recommendations that were brought in. The committee's recommendations were brought before parliament by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), who acted as chairman of the committee. A debate took place in the house with reference to these regulations in general, and particularly with reference to the question of the liberty of the subject being infringed upon.
There is only one section of the regulations with which I intend to deal this evening, and I am doing this only with a view to placing before the committee a suggestion which I think will remove a major portion of the objections which are being advanced to-day against the defence of Canada regulations as they now exist. Section 21 provides:
The Minister of Justice, if satisfied that with a view to preventing any particular person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state it is necessary to do so, may, notwithstanding anything in these regulations, make an order:
(e)	directing that he be detained in such place, and under such conditions, as the Minister of Justice may from time to time determine.
I see no objection to this section as it stands. The discretion is vested in the Minister of Justice and he has given his explanation as to the circumstances under which that discretion is exercised.
I come now to the section which I think does cause considerable difficulty, section 22, which reads:
For the purposes of the preceding regulation the Minister of Justice may appoint one or more advisory committees, each such committee to consist of a person who holds or has held high judicial office.
Section 26, which deals with the recommendations made from time to time by the committees so constituted reads:
Nothing in the preceding regulations shall prevent the Minister of Justice from ordering the release of any enemy alien from arrest, detention or internment, or from ordering the arrest, detention or internment of any enemy alien.
I am not now discussing the question of enemy aliens; I am discussing the question of British subjects. I think much of the alarm that has been aroused among certain people throughout this country against these regulations would be entirely allayed if provision were made for the setting up of a committee of review consisting not of one judge but of three judges, two superior court judges and the county or district court judge presiding over the court in the judicial district within which the internee was living at the time of his internment. A certain discretion must rest with the Minister of Justice; and I say here without equivocation that in my opinion no one in this dominion has anything to fear so long as the present Minister of Justice remains the incumbent of the position which he now occupies. I think it only fair to make that statement. Many people, however, believe that there is too much power concentrated in the hands of one man in the determination of the incarceration of British subjects in custody under the regulations.
The last speaker referred to the fact that there were some who said the defence of Canada regulations were to be exercised for the purpose of coercion. That I do not believe. I suggest, however, that many of the objections thereto would be done away with, in so far as British subjects are concerned, by setting up this judicial committee of three persons. It was said the other day that judges are not overworked, and that they have more leisure time than they used to have because of the falling off of litigation in recent months and years. Judges are available therefore to undertake this work, and by utilizing their services we would do away with unnecessary delays which sometimes occur before the hearing of appeals of interned persons. To-day one man exercises the dis-
1198	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
oration of determining whether or not one British subject shall remain incarcerated and another shall be discharged.
I realize, too, a court could not be set up within the ordinarily accepted meaning of the 'term, and that the ordinary processes of litigation would have to be done away with, in so far as this committee is concerned. It could hear the evidence of not only the accused man but also of those who would support 'him in his defence; and it could have access to the confidential records of the Department of Justice. To those who say that we should set up in Canada an appeal court similar to the other courts in our land, I reply that such a procedure would be impossible to-day. Such a procedure would endanger the activities of the secret service men who make the investigations, and would destroy the efficacy of the operations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In a very few months the secret agents would be known to all those who would destroy this nation from within.
That argument would not apply, however, to a judicial committee. Such a committee could listen to the evidence and would review the secret documents which are to-day reviewed by the Minister of Justice. The committee would make a decision. If the decision were not unanimous, then the discretion of determining release or continuation of incarceration for the appellant would remain in the Minister of Justice. If the three judges are unanimous in their findings, then in the interest of the safety of the subject such person, if found innocent of any offence by such a judicial tribunal, should be discharged. That would be a proper procedure in the interests of justice to the person concerned, and would be consonant with the freedom for which we are fighting.
I am not going to discuss the matter at greater length, but I would point out that in my opinion the setting up of such a judicial committee would go far toward removing the objections heard to-day against the regulations as now constituted, and would restore confidence. What is more important, it would act as an effective answer to those who suggest that to-day there are British subjects in labour unions and other organizations who are being held in custody unjustly and without trial.
I realize that many of the regulations are not more acceptable to the Minister of Justice than they are to other lawyers. But they are necessary. Someone has said that they are not definite enough and that they are not sufficiently direct. In my opinion, all the regulations are clear, direct and definite, and are not capable of being misunderstood. They

are necessary in the interests of the safety of the state, because unless such regulations are in effect, all that we have and all that we are may very well be destroyed from within.
I cannot believe that the Minister of Justice would be averse to the setting up of such a tribunal of judges. In his speech delivered last Thursday, he made no suggestions as to the changes which ought to take place, but he did point out the difficult duties and responsibilities imposed upon him in carrying out the regulations. He used these pertinent words:
I shall accept the new regulations if changes are made, and apply them with the same force and vigour and circumspection as I do to-day, using my best discretion in their application.
If such a change is made by the setting up of judicial tribunals with the powers I have suggested, I believe that the major cause of complaint to the present regulations will disappear.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Pardon me, I think I have the floor. My hon. friend the member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon) and I got mixed. We wanted somebody from British Columbia to contribute some intelligence to the house to-night, but we did not know we were both going to speak.
It is rather embarrassing to follow that excellent orator friend of mine from "Chipso", or some such place, in Manitoba. I agree with most of what he said, and I certainly agree with most of what the hon. member for Cariboo has said. But I sincerely disagree with what the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) has said.
I was not fortunate enough to get one of those pamphlets. I hope the hon. member for Weyburn will see that that is looked after in my mail to-morrow morning. I can readily understand the arrangements made in some of those places. I believe I am in order in quoting, if I state what I am quoting from. I hold in my hand the Evening Journal of Ottawa for Monday, March 3, 1941. Of course I could not quote that pamphlet to which reference has been made, and I could only see it from a distance, when the hon. member for Weyburn held it up.
On the front page of the Journal is a beautiful picture of Jimmy Stewart and Ginger Rogers. Possibly my hon. friend cannot see it, and I could not see the picture on the pamphlet he held up. I do not know what was in it. I am sorry the hon. member for Weyburn has apparently never been in British Columbia.

Defence of Canada-Special Committee


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He must have
passed through very quickly, and he certainly never stopped in the Fraser Valley.
I am not speaking disrespectfully, and I do not wish it to be so understood when I refer to the organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses. We can say to them, however, that we can thank God we have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Owing to the fact that it is a religious organization, I shall have nothing more to say about it. But I should like to say a word or two about the technocrats. That is an organization defended by the hon. member for Weyburn.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, no.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Pardon me; the hon. member had his time, and I shall have mine.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: And he had plenty of time, too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I refuse to have words put in my mouth. I merely said this was an organization which had been banned, without having been given an opportunity to make a defence on its own behalf.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad to be charged with putting words in my hon. friend's mouth. I would rather have words put in my mouth, even by a member of my hon. friend's group, than have them put in my mouth by Mr. Howard Scott of New York. That gentleman attempted to tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) how to run Canada, what we should do in connection with the war. Then my hon. friend wonders why they are barred. I remember hearing the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) refer to a member last year and saying that if he were the Minister of Justice, the member would be interned. That is just what I should like to do with Howard Scott and with anyone who is a supporter of Howard Scott. Hon. members are entitled to their opinions and I am entitled to mine. I know my hon. friend means well. If he would let me put more words in his mouth before he makes his speeches, they would be much better.
I have no particular complaint to make about these defence of Canada regulations, nor have I any broad suggestions to make in that connection. I am in favour of some of the suggestions put forward by my hon. friend, but I should like to tell him how we do things in British Columbia. In Canada some 3,000.000 out of a population of 11,000,000 are of foreign extraction. There is one member in this house from my province who
came out here as a poor immigrant forty years ago. I shall not mention his name because he would not like it if I did, but I can tell the house where he comes from-he comes from Skeena. He tried to enlist in the last war but he was turned down. He has a son serving in the air force in this war and a son-in-law in the army. He has a record which no member of that group can equal. He invested 540,000 in non-interest bearing bonds in this war. That is a record of which any Scandinavian family could be proud.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where did he get it?


George Alexander Cruickshank: He got it by hard work hewing ties. If we had a little more of that spirit in this country, we would not need the defence of Canada regulations.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am going to have my innings. I have risen in my place only twice this session, but the hon. member has risen to speak eleven times. One of the most necessary things in Canada is unity. Everyone should know that who is aware of the tremendous French-Canadian population. There is one man in this country who, in my humble opinion, has contributed more than anyone else to unity, particularly at this time.
I refer to the Minister of Justice. If we did not have unity we would not be able to continue to function as a dominion. We would need to have more severe regulations. If I remember his remarks correctly, the other day the Minister of Justice said that he did not care particularly what regulations were brought down, but as long as they were the law of the land, it was his duty to enforce them.
There were no objections raised last year to the recommendations which some hon. members made in connection with these regulations. Surely everyone realizes that there must be restrictions during war time. Surely every hon. member realizes that we cannot have everyone getting up and saying exactly what he feels like. I do not know what the -hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) said, but anything she says will be all right with me if I agree with it. There a-re, however, certain members of the provincial house with whose remarks I do not agree. Anything -that one member in particular would say would be all wrong with me. That member has been preaching pacifism for the last twenty years, and it is because of such preachings that we are in the position in which we find ourselves -to-day.
I shall not try to equal the remarks of the hon. member for Cariboo because he is one
1200	COMMONS
Defence of Canada-Special Committee
of our Canadian orators. Then we heard from the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). We do not need these defence of Canada regulations in British Columbia. Out there we obey the laws, at least most of them. Instead of trying to preach disunity, certain hon. members should try to preach unity. If they have any suggestions to make, they should place them before the committee. This action would probably save hon. members a great deal of time. I get forty circulars a day about papers being suppressed, when in fact these papers should never have been allowed to be published. I got an anonymous one the first time to-day. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) said the other day that he gets plenty of anonymous letters. This had a supposed picture of me, but they had me wearing a little toupee. That would have been all right, but they also had me with a little moustache and a band with a swastika on my arm. I was accused of having sold land to the Japanese. I do not know where they got that idea. I never gave the Japanese the vote, and I certainly never gave them any land. If my hon. friends over there would pay more attention to preaching unity and less to preaching disunity, we would find less need for the defence of Canada regulations.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour, it is not my intention to deal at any length with the defence of Canada regulations, and I do not propose to discuss them from either the legal or technical point of view. Having, however, been a member of the committee which made the recommendations last year, I felt that I should make a few remarks this evening. I want to say at the outset that I agree entirely with the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) with reference to naturalization and the necessity for our paying greater attention to this phase of our national life. We have too many hyphenated people in Canada. I am sure that all hon. members would rather have our people called Canadians than called German-Canadians, Italian-Canadians or some other form of hyphenated Canadians. What we want is a Canadian people, and I think that if the suggestions made by the hon. member for Vancouver South are carried out, they will go a long way toward realizing that end.
I was particularly impressed with what he said was necessary to nationalize the older generations of people who come to this country, but I think we should pay more attention to the younger generation as well. As the hon. member said, this should be done 
through our schools. Too little attention is paid in our schools to trying to make these young people good Canadian citizens. I think we could take a leaf from the book of our United States friends. That country is often spoken of as the melting pot. That is what we need in Canada. Our foreign-born residents should be taught Canadian ideals and what the country stands for. I do not intend to say more in this connection at present.
I attended practically all of the twenty-five meetings of the committee dealing with defence of Canada regulations and I heard most of the evidence. I wish to say that after hearing the evidence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and that given by officials of the department administering this act, I was fully convinced of the necessity for tightening these regulations. I was one of the majority which supported them right from the start. Since joining the army, I have been more than ever convinced of this necessity.
Anyone who knows of the dangers against which we must guard in our factories, in our military camps and all over this country and of the necessity of defending ourselves against subversive elements, must realize that we cannot be too careful in the enforcement of the defence of Canada regulations. It was only the other day that I read in one of the Montreal newspapers a report that an inspector found, on his inspection of the fire-fighting equipment of a factory, that the liquid in the fire-extinguishers had been removed and replaced with gasoline. We know, too, that in our military camps we must exercise the utmost vigilance to see that fires and other forms of destruction do not occur. For these reasons I am firmly convinced that our regulations are none too stringent and that they should be enforced to the utmost.
I think it is generally recognized in this country that in time of war we must be prepared to suspend some of our democratic liberties in order to preserve democracy for the future. That is a principle recognized by the great champions of liberty in the United States, particularly by President Roosevelt, and also by Mr. Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain. There is a saying that in peace time it is better that ten guilty men should go free than that one innocent man should suffer, and that may have been the principle upon which some hon. members who have spoken in this house to-day have based their arguments in this and in the previous debate. But -you and I, Mr. Speaker, know that principle does not apply in time of war. While I should not like to see any innocent man suffer, I believe that if a man is under suspicion and there is ground enough for such

Privilege-Mr. Harris (Danjorth)
suspicion, he should be interned for the safety of the state. He may be suspected, for instance, of blowing up a railway or setting fire to a camp or causing destruction to other property thus endangering the lives of a great many people. Proof may be impossible, yet the strongest suspicion points to him, and he should be interned.
The proof of the good administration of these regulations is in the result. One can take any criminal law upon our statute books and show this house that abuses have taken place under that law, but I have not heard very much in this house to convince me that the defence of Canada regulations have not been properly carried out. The names of two or three people have been mentioned, and it has been stated that some injustice has been done them, but I do not think that in any case this has 'been proved. As I said a moment or two ago, it is perhaps better that one or two men who have been indiscreet, perhaps, in their talk, if not in their actions, should suffer rather than that we should allow great damage to be done to this country in war time by allowing suspicious and dangerous men free for lack of proof.
With the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) I do not agree in a great many things. As a matter of fact, his ideas and mine in some matters are as far apart as one pole is from the other.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, I did not think it was as bad as that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am sure he is not going to worry very much over that. But with regard to his administration of the defence of Canada regulations, if he can preserve this country from the dangers of subversive elements, if he can see that Canada does not suffer in war time from the activities of these people, so far as I am concerned I am prepared to assist and support him in every way I can.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I move, Mr. Speaker, that the debate be adjourned.


Ernest Lapointe: I should
like to oblige my hon. friend, but really this resolution to appoint a committee has been before the house for two days and we were hoping to have it carried to-day so that the committee might be appointed. Of course, if my hon. friend insists and the house wishes to accommodate her, I personally have no objection.


Mr. HANSELL:: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) has been referred to several times during the debate this evening and she has not really had an opportunity to prepare an answer.


Georges Parent: If the hon. member continues, he will be making a speech and will be out of order. The motion before the house is that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Tuesday, March 4, 1941.