1942-05-04

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth) moved:: That the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on May 1, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Wood Mountain) moved):
That the first report of the special committee on vocational training, presented to the house on May 1, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	From *whom was the land purchased in connection with the airport near Smithers, British Columbia?
2.	What price was paid for such land?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	After investigation and study of a number of possible sites for an airfield in the Prince Rupert area, the department, on the advice of its air officials, expropriated a portion of the farm property of Mr. Olaf Hanson, M.P., covering the east half of the southeast quarter of section 14, and the east half of the northeast quarter of section 11, containing approximately 155 acres; also arranged with the provincial government of British Columbia to place at the disposal of the dominion, by order in council for the same purpose, adjacent property consisting of the east half of the southeast quarter of section 11, the west half of section 12, and the southwest quarter of section 13, township 1A, containing approximately 320 acres.
The land thus expropriated was held to have the following advantages: It was sufficiently inland to be within the favourable weather area; it presented suitable flying approaches; it was close to the railroad and the main road; telephone, telegraph and power were available, also water supply from a lake adjoining the site. Topographical features also were such that it was possible to lay down the runway into the prevailing winds which are not of the high velocity encountered on the coast.
2.	The consideration in respect of the provincial crown property will be nominal. No pa3'ment has as yet been made for the Hanson property.


NATIONAL SALVAGE DIRECTOR
Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Is Mr. Charles LaFerle's announcement, made in Toronto, of his appointment as national salvage director, correct?
2.	If so, (a) what was his former employment; (b) with whom was he employed; (c) upon whose recommendation was his appointment made; (d) what salary or other emoluments did lie receive?
3.	Has Mr. William Knightley been national salvage director?
4.	When was he appointed?
5.	Upon whose recommendation was his appointment made ?
6.	What was his former employment?
7.	Who were his former employers?
8.	What salary or other emoluments did he receive in this office?
9.	If a change has been made, upon -whose recommendation and for what reasons?

Questions


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	Yes; Mr. LaFerle's appointment as Natioiial Salvage Director was made by order in council under date of April 30, 1942.
2.	(a) Transportation Manager; (b) Robert Simpson Company, Limited, Toronto;
(c)	Hon. Mr. Justice T. C. Davis, associate deputy minister of the department; (d) no information.
3.	No formal appointment as such was made, but Mr. Knightley, while on loan to the Department of National War Services from the Department of Transport, has been in charge of the salvage division of the department.
4.	He began such duties in February, 1941.
5.	He assumed such duties on the recommendation of Hon. Mr. Justice T. C. Davis, associate deputy minister of the department.
6.	Supervisor of stores and plant.
7.	Department of Transport, Ottawa.
8.	Salary of $3,720 per annum.
9.	The recommendation for Mr. LaFerle's appointment originated with Hon. Mr. Justice T. C. Davis, associate deputy minister. Because of the growing importance and rapid expansion of the salvage division, greater emphasis has to be placed on the organization of machinery for the collection of salvage of all kinds. It was felt that the appointment of a man of Mr. LaFerle's experience was necessary to organize effectively such machinery throughout Canada. Mr. Knightley continues as associate director with no change in salary.


ELECTRICAL OR RADIO PATENT RIGHTS
Mr. ESLING:: 1.	Is the government considering the appropriation for war purposes of radio patents controlled by Thermionics Limited or by any other radio company or individual owning or controlling electrical or radio patent rights?
2.	Has the government entered into any contract with any Canadian company or individual for the purchase or use of any electrical or radio patents for war purposes?
3.	If so, what are the names of the companies or individuals?
4.	What do the patents cover and what are the terms of the transaction?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	All radio patents, some nine hundred in number, owned or controlled by Canadian manufacturers of radio equipment have been placed at the disposal of the government for the duration of the war, compensation to be such as the Commissioner of Patents may determine.
2.	No, except as above.
3.	Answered by 2.
4.	Answered by 2.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-TRANSFER OF OFFICES FROM OTTAWA


Mr. LECLERC:: 1.	Is the government aware that an explosion occurred recently at the works of the International Flare and Signal Company at Waterloo, Quebec, causing seven or eight deaths?
2.	Has the government awarded any war contracts to this company?
3.	If so, (a) what is the minimum salary or wages paid; (b) are employees injured in accidents occurring in -war industries entitled to workmen's compensation?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	The explosion referred to occurred actually in the MacDonald Chemical Company plant which is a concern under the same ownership as the International Flare and Signal Company, and is adjacent to the latter plant. The government is aware of the explosion and the regrettable loss of life and injuries sustained by employees and the matter is under investigation at the present time.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Employers are required to conform to wage regulations specified in P.C. 7679, which provides for minimum wages of 35 cents per hour for adult males and 25 cents per hour for adult females; (b) Employees in war industries are entitled to workmen's compensation benefits.


MILITARY SERVICE-CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	By provinces, how many applicants have asked for postponement of military service on the grounds of conscientious objection to military service?
2.	By provinces, how many such requests were granted ?


Mr. THORSON:: 1. Applicants	2. Applicants
	who	who have
	asked for	been granted
	postponement	postponement
	of military	of military
	service on	service on
	the grounds of	the grounds of
	conscientious	conscientious
Provinces	objection	objectionP.E.I	... 6	2N.S	... 10	1N.B	... 12	2Que	... 108	13Ont	... 477	338Man	... 1,095	1,039Sask	... 265	257Alta	... 214	128B.C	... 386	194Total...	... 2,573	1,974


DEHYDRATION OF VEGETABLES
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What progress is being made with the dehydration of vegetables plan as outlined in order in council P.C. 9228/41?
2.	What plants have been equipped to do this work and where are they located?
3.	Have any plants been equipped in the potato-raising sections of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island?
4.	How much of the money appropriated has been expended to date?
5.	What quantity of each vegetable has been dehydrated and what was the market price of each ?
6.	What was the cost per pound to dehydrate these vegetables?
7.	What market was found for the dehydrated vegetables and at what price per pound were they sold for each different vegetable?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	The project for dehydration of vegetables under order in council P.C. 9228/41 is completed.
2.	The following established dehydration plants received some special extra equipment in order to process the vegetables according to specifications prescribed by the Department of Agriculture: The United Fruit Companies of Nova Scotia Limited, Kentville, N.S., factory at Aylesford, N.S.; Berwick Fruit Products Limited, Berwick, NB.; R. B. Graham, manufacturer of dehydrated vegetables and fruits, Belleville, Ontario; Gordon Beardmore and Company Limited, Oakville, Ontario; Bulmans Limited, Vernon, B.C.
3.	No.
4. Expended to April 29, 1942:		Equipment,
$21,109.96; raw	materials and	processing,
$98,513.30.		
5. Quantity of	each vegetable	dehydrated
and market price:		
	Amount	Average
	Pro-	Price
	cessed	Paid
	Tons	per ton
Potatoes 	
1,100	$26 to $44T urnips 	
690	15Carrots 	
300	25Cabbage 	
205	256. Vegetables were dehydrated under terms	of a target contract, with ceiling	price, actualcost will not be	known until the	: completionof government	audit being conducted in	
accordance with agreements with processors. 7. The armed forces in Canada and abroad:
Prices f.o.b. factory
Potatoes	 31c.
Turnips	 45c.
Carrots	 47c.
Cabbage	 73c.

Questions


RESERVE AIRPORT, SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	Who obtained the construction contract for the erection of buildings at the reserve airport, Sydney, Nova Scotia, during the winter and spring of 1940 and 1941?
2.	Was the contract let by tender?
3.	Was the lowest tender accepted?
4.	If not, for what reason?
5.	What was the price of the lowest tender?
6.	What was the final cost of the job?
7.	Who was awarded the construction work at Point Edward Sydney, Nova Scotia?
8.	Was this awarded on a cost-plus basis and at how much per cent?
9.	If so, why were tenders not called?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Fundy Construction Company of Halifax, Nova Scotia.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Answered by 3.
5.	$445,178,
6.	The final cost has not yet been determined. It is expected to be approximately $808,000, which included necessary additions to the original contract.
7.	Dominion Construction Company, Toronto, Canada.
8.	The contract was awarded on the basis of cost plus a fixed' fee to the contractor.
9.	The plans had to be developed as the work progressed and it was therefore considered impractical to call for tenders.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-QU'APPELLE RIVER DAMS
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many dams were constructed, under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, during 1939, 1940 and 1941, on the Qu'Appelle river between Lumsden, Saskatchewan and the Manitoba boundary ?
2.	At what points?
3.	What was the cost of each?
4.	Were tenders called in each case?
5.	Who was the contractor in each case?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Two.
2.	Crooked lake and Round lake.
3.	Crooked lake, $20,805; Round lake, $18,625.
4.	Yes. One contract covered both dams.
5.	P. South, Regina, Sask.


SHIPMENT OF EGGS TO BRITAIN
Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	For purposes of export, what is the fixed quota for the production of eggs in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	How many contracts for export have been awarded for all Canada for evaporated eggs?
3.	In connection with the egg exportation contracts, how have they been divided among the several provinces?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	There are no fixed quotas for the production of eggs for export from each province.
2.	Two contracts have been entered into for the export of shell eggs to Great Britain in 1942; one for 23,100,000 dozen and the second for 15,000,000 dozen. Of this quantity,
4,110,000	dozen had been exported in the shell up to February 7, when the ministry of food requested that the remainder be dried and shipped to Britain in that form. Since then an additional contract for 2,300,000 lbs. of dried eggs has been completed.
3.	There has been no effort to divide the export contracts among different provinces. The contracts are sufficiently large to take all available eggs from all provinces. Quantities delivered or contracted from each province to the end of April are:
Dozen
British Columbia	 775,140
Alberta	 3,228,210
Saskatchewan	 3.523,320
Manitoba	 3,148.920
Ontario	 10,378,080
Quebec	 561,390
New Brunswick	 18,000
Nova Scotia	 -
P.E.1	 126,000
Total	 21,759,060


PLEBISCITE-QUEBEC COUNTIES
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	How many electors, men and women, were
there on the voters' lists for the plebiscite on April 27 last, in the following counties:	(a)
Maisonneuve-Rosemont, (b) Mercier, (c) Mount Royal, (d) Outremont, (e) Ste. Anne, (f) St. Antoine-Westmount, (g) St. Denis, (h) St. Henri, (i) St. James, (j) St. Lawrence-St. George, (k) St. Mary, (1) Cartier, (m) Hochelaga, (n) Jacques-Cartier, (o) Laurier, (p) Verdun?
2.	How many voters of both sexes were omitted from the lists in each of these counties and voted after having taken the oath in order to ascertain their right to vote in the polls of the said divisions?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Information not yet available.
2.	This information is given only in a poll book which forms part of plebiscite documents. Form 42 of the ordinary voter plebiscite regulations prescribed that such documents are only subject to inspection in certain cases.

Questions


ADMISSION TO CANADA OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since the beginning of the war, were any conscientious objectors admitted to Canada?
2.	If so, how many?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Information not available.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


DOUKHOBORS, MENNONITES AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
Mr. POULIOT:: What is the number of (1) Doukhobors, (2) Mennonites, (3) conscientious objectors, (a) in each province, (b) in each constituency?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: This question cannot be answered because it is not possible to identify the categories of persons. If the hon. member will redraft his question, it can be considered, but in the meantime I ask that it be dropped.
Question dropped.


MILITARY SERVICE-AGES 18 TO 30-NUMBERS MOBILIZED, REJECTED OR EXEMPT
Mr. JEAN:: 1.	According to the latest statistics what is the number in each province, of (a) young men of 18, 19 and 20 years of age; (b) young men of 21, 22, 23 and 24 years; (c) young men of 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 years?
2.	What is the number in each province of those actually mobilized for active service in each category?
3.	What is the number, by provinces, of those who have been declared incapable of military service?
4.	What is the number, by provinces, of young men between 18 and 30 years of age who are exempt from military service under the law or by reason of their beliefs?


Mr. RALSTON:: This question should pass as an order for return, but I do not think the statistics asked for in paragraph 4 are available.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Why is it not possible to get information of that kind? You could get it by military districts.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member is asking for the number of men exempt from military service under the law or by reason of their beliefs. I understood at first that he was referring to postponements, but possibly that is not so, in which event it can be answered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As the law now stands it seems to me that that can be answered. I assume the reference to beliefs would refer to conscientious objectors.


James Layton Ralston: That must be covered by law too.


Jean-François Pouliot: This does not come under the Minister of National Defence; it comes under the Minister of National War Services.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I would ask that this question stand.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Question stands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. STOKES:: 1.	How many officers of the permanent force of the Canadian army are now serving in Canada, and how many are serving overseas?
2.	What is the name of each officer of the permanent force of the Canadian army?
3.	What rank was held and what pay and allowances and/or salary was received by each such officer in the fiscal year prior to the outbreak of war?
4.	What rank does each such officer now hold and what is the total pay and allowances and/or salary of each such person at the present time?


James Layton Ralston: This question will be passed as an order for return, but I want to tell the mover that it will take some time to get the information. The information with regard to pay and allowances of those who are overseas will have to be got from England.



CANADIAN FORCES-MEMBERS OF PENTECOSTAL OR FULL GOSPEL CHURCH

Mr. STOKES:: How many members of the Pentecostal or Full Gospel church are in (a) the army, (b) the air force, (c) the navy?



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN RECEIPT OF NET REMUNERATION IRRESPECTIVE OF INCOME TAX RATE

Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	Is any officer or employee of this government or any government-owned corporation, or other emanation of the crown, in receipt of any salary, remuneration or other emolument, as to which the recipient is guaranteed a net amount irrespective of the rate of personal income tax, or is any such recipient the holder of a contractual right or undertaking given by the payor whereby the amount received is dependent on the rate of personal income tax?
2.	If so, what are the names of such officers or employees?
3.	How much does each receive annually?
4.	How much is the tax assumed indirectly by the payor in each case on the income paid to such individual for the calendar year 1941?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. FAIR:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Canadian

Motions jor Papers
wheat board or the Department of Trade and Commerce or any other department of government and the British cereals import board or any department of the British government, dealing with the closing of the Winnipeg grain exchange.


Mr. CRERAR:: My colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) is not in the house to-day but he has asked me to make the following statement regarding this motion.
The requests from the British cereals import board to keep the Winnipeg grain exchange open have always been embodied in cables which the wheat board have received from the United Kingdom. In every message there are matters relating to other government business, and it is therefore not advisable to table the entire communications.
If my hon. friend will turn to page 2360, volume 3, of the 1940 debates of the House of Commons, he will find a complete cablegram from the deputy director of the cereals import board to Mr. George Mclvor, from which I quote in part:
This branch of the ministry of food is desirous that the Winnipeg futures market be kept open.
The balance of the message can be found in Hansard. And again on page 3682 of the Hansard of 1941, I read a quotation from another cable as follows:
Cereals of course must be assured that the market remains open.
The British authorities have consistently maintained this position. Further than this, it is not in the public interest to table any documents. With this information, I think the motion might be dropped.


Robert Fair: This matter has raised considerable doubt in the minds of people throughout Canada. The British government closed the exchange in England immediately after the war started and the people are wondering why the Canadian grain exchange must be kept open. Personally I believe that if the Minister of Mines and Resources were to open up his heart in the interests of the farmers who sent him here originally, he would give us a whole lot of information-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Fair: -as to the reasons for this exchange being open.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have stated already that it is not considered in the public interest to bring down these communications. I have been long enough in this house that I do not need to have any instructions from the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). When the government states that it is not
44561-132J
in the public interest to bring down these documents I think that should be accepted by the house. If the hon. member for Battle River will reflect, he will realize that there are two parties to these decisions and to these cables. This government is not in the habit of bringing down communications of that kind when other government authorities are concerned.
Motion dropped.



BRITISH WHEAT PURCHASES, 1939-42

Robert Fair: For a return showing the price paid by the British cereals import board or any department of the British government for wheat purchased from the Canadian wheat board during the crop years 1939-40, 1940-41 and 1941-42 to date.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The objection raised to the previous motion will apply to this motion. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) has asked me to make the following statement.
In reply to the hon. member for Battle River, I wish to state that one of the terms of the sales contract between the Canadian wheat board and the British cereals import board is that the price will not be disclosed on this side. They have been asked to consider a departure from this undertaking, but are unwilling to allow us to disclose the price. We are bound to abide by their decision. On these grounds I would ask that this motion be dropped.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This simply means that the Canadian people are not to be told anything about what their own agency is doing with respect to the sale of wheat so far as price is concerned. Notwithstanding the intimation that the buyer does not want these prices revealed, I respectfully dissent from that view. I think the people of Canada, and particularly the wheat producers of Canada, should know what the wheat board is getting for the wheat produced. The price paid to the wheat producers is the residual.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that the answers that are now being given are a great reflection on our own power to govern ourselves. Surely this parliament as a body should not be dictated to by any body outside.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If I may be permitted, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is taking a wholly wrong view.


Major James William Coldwell: No, I am not.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This is a transaction between a government board in Canada and a govern*-
Motions for Papers

ment board in Great Britain for the purchase of wheat. If the other party to the agreement do not wish, for reasons which they consider good, to have the information disclosed, I think we should respect that view. There is no question of any injustice being done to the farmer. The worst that could happen would be the criticism that perhaps we were not getting a large enough price for the wheat, but under the terms of the wheat board act, if the total amount realized exceeds the advance that has been paid by the wheat board the balance goes to the farmer. There is no question about that.


Mr. COLD WELL:: But the farmers have the right to know what they are getting.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We know what we are getting for our bacon; we know what we are getting for our cheese; why should we not know what we are getting for our wheat?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will bring the matter to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and he may inquire from the British cereals import board whether they are willing to have the price disclosed. Otherwise I think it should not be disclosed.
Motion stands.



NATIONAL WAR LABOUR BOARD-WAGE AND BONUS ADJUSTMENT DECISIONS

Major James William Coldwell: For a copy of the national war labour board's decision regarding wage and bonus adjustments and the reasons therefor, in the case of: (a) the application of the employees of the Martin Transport Company through their union, the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees; (b) the application of the employees of the Dominion Coal Company and other coal companies in Nova Scotia through their union, district 26 of the United Mine Workers of America.



TORONTO COAL TRADE

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: For a copy of all correspondence, during the years, 1939, 1940, 1941 and to date in 1942, exchanged between, (a) W. A. Gunn and Mr. Ilsley, regarding cannel coal; (b) Mr. Roebuck, M.P., and Mr. Ilsley regarding Toronto coal trade; (c) Mr. Conant, Attorney General for Ontario, and Mr. Ilsley, regarding Toronto coal trade; (d) Mr. J. F. Ogston, manager of the Ferguson Fuels Limited, and the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board; (e) wartime prices and trade board and the fuel administrator and the Toronto retail fuel dealers' association, together with letters written by individual Toronto coal dealers to the wartime prices and trade board and the fuel administrator; (f) W. A. Gunn and Mr. Ralston and Mr. Ilsley regarding a 10 per cent
fMr. Crerar.]
import tax on coal covering the 1940 season; (g) the Toronto Retail Fuel Dealers' Association and the Toronto trade and industry commission.
Also a copy of the brief presented to the manager of the Combines Act by Senator McGuire, on behalf of the Toronto Retail Fuel Dealers' Association.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I submit that this motion should not pass without certain reservations. In the first place, some of the communications asked for will likely apply to the private business of those writing. If the motion should pass, and I have no objection generally speaking to its passing, it should be subject to the reservation that if it does not appear to be in the public interest to make public communications which relate to private business, those communications will not be produced. Secondly, the communications which passed between the Toronto retail fuel dealers' association and the Toronto trade and industry commission, if any, are not I assume in the possession of this government. Finally, I am not sure what official is meant by "manager of the Combines Act." Subject to these reservations I have no objection to the motion passing.


Major James William Coldwell: There are quite a number of reservations. I submit that when- a business or corporation is doing business with the government, the submissions they make and the business they do become public business and that therefore the communications referred to in the motion are in the nature of public documents and ought to be tabled. I submit that for the consideration of the minister.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My view about that is this. There can be no objection whatever to bringing down communications between Mr. Gunn and myself, although I do not know what they were, nor am I sure that there were any, but I am quite sure he would be acting on behalf of a body of opinion in writing such letters, and naturally my letters in reply would not be privileged. The same remark would apply, I assume, to the communications between Mr. Roebuck and myself, if they were not marked confidential or private. I have no recollection of any such communications. The same remark would also apply to communications between the attorney general of Ontario and myself. But when we come to the communications between Mr. Ogston, whom I do not know, and the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, I assume that Mr. Ogston might be revealing in complete form the details of his private business and therefore they would not be made public. There comes a limit beyond which communications should not be produced-the' type of communication, for instance, that passes

Defence of Canada Regulations
between the Department of National Revenue and taxpayers. They are not regarded as public documents or as documents which should be produced in the house.
With regard to the rest of the resolution it would appear to me that any communications between the wartime prices and trade board and the fuel administrator and the Toronto Retail Fuel Dealers' Association would be properly producible. But when it comes to letters written by individual coal dealers in Toronto, if there are any such, if a coal dealer stated the volume of his business and dealt rvith his personal problems in a letter I doubt whether it should be produced. Some discretion would have to be exercised by the minister as to whether the documents should be made public. I would not like the motion to pass without these reservations being made. Subject to these reservations, everything that can be produced will be brought down.



AMIENS, SASK., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mrs. NIELSEN:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other communications exchanged during the last six months, between the government and any individual regarding the post office at Amiens, Saskatchewan, and the appointment of a new postmaster in that office.



NO. 40 SERVICE FLYING TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr. HANSELL:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, agreements and other documents exchanged during the past year between the government or any department thereof, and any person or persons, regarding the changing of the name of No. 40 service flying training school from Kirealdy to Vulcan.



OTTAWA CAR AND AIRCRAFT

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, agreements, evidence and other documents in the possession of the Department of Munitions and Supply, dated since the beginning of the present war, regarding the Ottawa Car and Aircraft Manufacturing Company of Ottawa.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved:
That a select committee of this house, consisting of the following members: Messrs. Bence, Bertrand (Laurier), Black (Yukon), Claxton, Dupuis, Hansell, Hazen, Maclnnis, McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River), Martin, Maybank, Michaud, O'Neill, Ross (Calgary), Slaght, be appointed to consider and review the
defence of Canada regulations (consolidation), 1941, and amendments thereto; with power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses under oath; and to report their opinions and observations from time to time to the house.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, this would seem to me to be an appropriate time for our new colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to address this house on a formal occasion, and I invite him to do so.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: He will finish the debate if he does so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, he has moved a motion without saying anything; he has the right to wind up afterwards; and as he did not rise, I thought it was incumbent upon me to extend this invitation.
This committee which has been set up annually in this parliament has served, I think, a very useful function. I am told, by those who have had the privilege of acting upon it, that it has been freer from partisan considerations than any other committee which has been operating in this parliament. This is all to the good, because it is dealing with a problem which has, I should hope, nothing to do with party.
We have had from time to time one or two debates on the reports of this committee, and they have been instructive and illuminating. I am not unaware of the fact that public opinion has changed from time to time with respect to the deliberations of this committee and the recommendations which it has made to parliament and which have been crystallized by changes in the regulations. In the early stages of the war everybody was to be interned. Later a more liberal view prevailed. The late minister of justice had his own ideas and opinions, and I am wondering what the position of the new minister is with regard to this very important problem *-one which no doubt is constantly before him.
I should like to know in particular what his attitude is towards that body of public opinion, if I may so term it, the communist party of Canada. I understand that certain communications have passed between an official of that party, which is now barred and is probably operating under another name, and the minister himself; in fact I have seen a copy of an open statement which was made to the minister. I should like to know what the present attitude of the department is with relation to the communist party, which at the present time is declared to be an illegal body in Canada, but which to-day, if one can believe the protestations that appear

Defence of Canada Regulations
in the public press and the communications which reach us in manner I know not just how, is for an all-out war effort. Has that had any effect upon the minds of the minister and his advisers, or does something lie behind it? I am not making any allegations or statements; I am looking for information. I think we have the right to know, since this motion has been put to the house, what is the policy of the government in relation to the important question of the defence of Canada regulations. Are they to be ameliorated or are they to be stiffened? What lead will the minister give to the committee, or is the committee to be left with a free hand, as has been the case in days gone by when recommendations have been made by the committee? It would be interesting to know, so far as it is possible to express it here, the policy of the government in regard to this matter.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to know that a committee is to be set up again to review the defence of Canada regulations and to consider the administration of the regulations. I regret exceedingly that I am not able to serve on the committee this year. I believe the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) was quite correct in his statement that probably in no committee has there been less political partisanship than in the defence of Canada committee. From time to time when we divided it was frequently along the lines of, shall I say, a liberal interpretation of the regulations, versus one which was not so liberal and the liberal interpretation seemed to cut clear across party lines in the committee.
I think it is wise that the house should review each session the operations under regulations such as these, which do infringe upon normal peace-time rights of the citizens of this country. During the past two and a half years, since the war broke out and these regulations have been in effect, there has been a great deal of criticism both of the regulations and-sometimes-of the manner in which they have been administered. From time to time the committee, after full and free discussion, recommended modifications of certain of the regulations, and I am glad to know that all the modifications recommended last year were subsequently implemented by the government, so that the consolidated regulations as they now stand are in effect approved, to a very large extent, by the committees which have worked upon them.
There are still some defects which ought to be remedied. I have never been quite satisfied with regulation 21, although under the procedure adopted now under No. 22, regulation

21 becomes less objectionable. I think I may say, as one who up to about ten months ago had received voluminous protests against section 21, that since then I have received very few. Yet I feel that section 21 and the administration thereunder should be carefully reviewed this year by the committee.
We have in Canada, as the leader of the opposition intimated a few moments ago, a large number of people in civilian concentration camps, classified as prisoners of war, who were picked up because it was suspected that they held ideas subversive of Canada's war effort. They of course fell into two groups. There were the ones referred to by the leader of the opposition a few moments ago, those who were accused of communistic attachments; and there was a large group of Italians who were suspected of fascist tendencies. As the leader of the opposition quite properly pointed out, at the outbreak of hostilities there was a demand that very large numbers of people should be interned immediately, and I think it is not untrue to say that many of the people who were picked up at that time and placed in concentration or internment camps were placed there on very flimsy evidence. I have noted, therefore, with a good deal of interest and satisfaction, that the present Minister of Justice this year has had reviewed many of these cases, and some of these people have been liberated. But perhaps we are still too narrow in our view in that regard, and many of the people who were accused, for example, of communistic affiliations, because of their attitude towards the war before Russia entered the war, are now anxious and willing to assist in every way possible to carry forward our war effort.
As the house knows, I have very little confidence in people who more or less place another country ahead of their own, and whose ideas are governed entirely by events which take place elsewhere. Nethertheless I think it is quite proper to say that these cases should be reviewed and that those who are genuinely opposed to the fascist and Hitler ideas, as I believe that all these people really are, should receive consideration and should be allowed to resume their normal lives as a part of the community. I do not think it is wise or good, I do not think it is conducive to the maintenance of morale in this country, that people should be incarcerated because of views they held two years ago which have changed drastically in the past ten or twelve months.
There are one or two other matters in connection with these regulations to which

Defence of Canada Regulations
I wish to refer. A number of papers have been banned from time to time. Against the banning of these papers there has been no adequate appeal, and I am at a loss to understand just what the policy of the government is in regard to periodicals published outside and within this country. I have been receiving free for the past eight or ten months, ever since, I believe, the first issue appeared, a publication known as the Voice of Austria. I noticed only to-day that this was published in Ottawa; I thought it was still published in New York. When I was in Great Britain last October I met the secretary of the Free-Austrian movement of Great Britain, the council of democratic Austrians in that country. To show that it is a respectable organization I will read the list of patrons:	The Most Rev. the Lord Archbishop of York, now Archbishop of Canterbury; the Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Chichester; the Chief Rabbi; the Rt. Hon. Lord Hailey, G.CB.L., G.C.I.E.; Sir William H. Bragg, O.M., K.B.E., F.R.S.; Comdr. 0. S. Locker Lampson, C.M.G., D.S.O., M.P.; Maj. V. Cazalet, M.C., M.P.; Mrs. M. Corbett-Ashby; Mrs. D. F. Buxton. The chairman of the council is Professor W. Schiff, and the secretary, Miss E. Kolmer. I had a communication from Miss Kolmer, writing as secretary of the council of Austrians of Great Britain, which reached me after I left London, and I think it would be well for me to place the letter on the record because it will give the background to what I shall have to say in a moment. I quote:
Austrian Centre,
124, 126, 132, Westbourne Terrace,

28th November, 1941.
Mr. Coldwell, M.P.,
House of Commons.
Ottawa. Canada.
Dear Mr. Coldwell:
You will remember our talk on Austrian matters when I saw you in London. I wonder whether you have seen the Voice of Austria which is being published in the U.S.A. I am sending you herewith some extracts from this paper which I think are about to do great harm to the Austrian cause, because they alienate Czechs, Yugoslavs and any of our neighbour nations with whom we hope to live in peace, friendship and closest collaboration. We would be most grateful for anything you can do to make known our views on this subject.
I have before me a statement of the Free Austrian Movement giving their views regarding post-war Europe.
No national socialism for us, reformed or not, brown or of some other shade, neither with Hitler nor with Thiessen, nor with any of our home-grown Quislings. But we cannot decide to-day what Austria will look like after
the war and which form of relationship towards other nations she will choose. There are many possibilities, and it is not our business to decide on one now, and to try to impose it on the Austrian people later on. The only thing we can work for now is to give our country the chance to be free and independent again and to enable the Austrian people to decide their future. There are many divergent views about the country we are going to build after the war, but we rather welcome this variety. The more ideas are advanced on planning the future the more likely that we will find the best way in the end.
I point that out in contrast to the Voice of Austria to which I have referred and which is published in this country. Let me now read to the house a paragraph from the publication, published in Ottawa. The edition I have in my hand came to my desk this morning.


Mr. MARTIN:: What was the last statement quoted from?


Major James William Coldwell: The last statement was from the press bulletin of the Council of Austrians in Great Britain issued last October, and I want to contrast it with the point of view which is expressed in this other expensively printed periodical.
Indeed, the foreign minister of Czechoslovakia and after Masaryk's premature death her president, had a very influential voice in Europe for twenty years. Many important decisions were based on his advice. It would perhaps be unjust to judge him by the final result. But there was something wrong in the fact that the leader of a small race-the Czechs number 7 million-directed the fate of a continent which is inhabited by more than 400 million people. This could not find a happy ending. It roused too many animosities. When Czechoslovakia was founded, the Czech spokesmen promised that they would copy the example of Switzerland. In foreign affairs this would have meant caution and reticence. Swiss statesmen were silent between the two wars, often more silent than we should have desired since they could have acted as a rich source of political wisdom. The leader of the Czechs had his finger in every pie. Old Austria-Hungary's foreign policy had been too active for a mixed community but she had had her duties as a great power. Czechoslovakia, not less mixed, made the same mistake without being obliged to. *
Since, as we have shown, the fiction of the Czechoslovak nation-
Note that-"the fiction of the Czechoslovak nation." I venture to say that there is no people on earth to whom we owe a greater obligation than to the people of Czechoslovakia. There are no people to whom we owe a greater measure of restitution than to those people who were thrown overboard in order to preserve a few months of uneasy peace in 1938. Yet we have a refugee of enemy nationality coming to this country and daring to write in the terms which I have just quoted. To continue:
Questions as Orders for Returns

Since, as we have shown, the fiction of the Czechoslovak nation was the root of those errors, it can be hoped that the abandonment of the pretence by Dr. Benes will inaugurate a new attitude towards the other races in the Danubian basin.
I am not going to read all the numerous extracts I have from the same periodical. It was published in New York; I have read it for the past eight months, and I had noted some of these statements. Again and again it came to the defence of Mussolini and of the fascists of Italy. I believe that this country should open its doors to refugees who have suffered from oppression on the continent of Europe, but if they do come we should expect them to play the game with our allies, and particularly with Czechoslovakia.


Mr. TURGEON:: What is the date of that issue?


Leslie Gordon Bell: May, 1942. The article is found on page 3, entitled "A Fiction Abandoned."
The second article I want to refer to in this same issue is entitled "A Grievous Failure." It refers throughout sarcastically to the man who to-day is the deputy prime minister of Great Britain, a great figure in the cause of the united nations. It pokes fun at his idealism. No man in the Englishspeaking world is imbued with a greater sense of Christian idealism than Sir Stafford Cripps. Under the defence of Canada regulations we have the right to look into statements of this kind. I do not know why the writer left New York. Perhaps there were objections to articles of the kind appearing in this magazine in the United States-


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is
the name of the author?


Major James William Coldwell: Doctor Franz Klein.
Incidentally he is still of enemy nationality. .It seems a strange thing to me that we allow people of enemy nationality to come into this country and to write sarcastically of men responsible for the conduct of the cause of the united nations and to stir up strife among people of our allies in our own country. When I was in western Canada a short time ago I learnt that Czechs took exception to the kind of thing that was being published in this periodical, although I did not realize that it was now being published in Canada. I do not know upon what grounds we can keep our own citizens in concentration camps, and refugee friends of our cause who were picked up and sent to this country from England at the time of Dunkirk, who have been given a clean bill of health by the British authorities 
after investigation of their cases, and yet allow people to come in freely and stir up strife in our country by publishing their objectionable ideas in papers issued in Ottawa. There is something wrong about that.
Let me refer to another case of the same sort, that of Otto Strasser. He lives in Montreal. He is still a nazi, as nazi as Otto Strasser ever was. He helped found the nazi party-


An hon. MEMBER:: Along with his
brother.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, his brother was
liquidated by Hitler, and he hates Hitler because he was unable to undermine Hitler. He comes to this country, lives here and freely writes articles in newspapers; yet on the very flimsiest evidence our own people and friendly refugees are detained in internment camps. I do not know how many of the latter have been liberated and sent back to England in the last eighteen months, but I know that hundreds who were in civilian, internment camps here were taken back and are now working in munitions factories and even serving in the armed forces.
And we may have still in these internment camps men who have been given a clean bill of health by the British investigators. I want to bring this to the attention of the house on this occasion, and to the attention of the committee particularly; for while we ought, regardless of race, religion or nationality, to give refuge to those who suffer from oppression and persecution, yet I think that when such people come to this country they should at least refrain from sarcastic references to or criticism of the great leaders of the united nations; nor should they be allowed to stir up nationalistic animosities in this country.
I am not going to say anything in detail at this time about the defence of Canada regulations. They and the operations under them will be looked into by the committee. I think the time has come, however, when the members of the committee ought to go thoroughly into certain cases of people interned, and the committee ought to insist on being given access to the files in order that they may come to a proper conclusion regarding these cases. The attitude has always been taken that the committee was not permitted to view these files. I think that in some instances the files should be examined by the committee. I am not on the committee this year, so that perhaps I can say that quite freely. The committee should look into certain oases which have been reviewed, turned down, reviewed and turned down again.
I welcome the establishment of the committee. I think it is wise that at each session

Defence of Canada Regulations
during the war such a committee should be set up to carry on the work for which the committee is designed.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: It is pleasing to us to see that this committee is again going to be set up. We believe that since the committee last sat there have been changes in t-he defence of Canada regulations and in the interpretations placed upon those regulations and in the status of a great many people and organizations and periodicals which have been dealt with under those regulations. It seems to me that this committee should review with the most searching and objective care the whole question of organizations which we have declared illegal in Canada, and of the periodicals which we have banned both within and without Canada, and of the people whom we have consigned to internment camps on the basis of the defence of Canada regulations.
I am more than a little concerned and perturbed by reports which reach me from time to time. I am anxious lest we do a grave injustice to a number of people in Canada, and lest we thereby impair our war effort. Certain it is that when men have been punished for offences which to their fellows appear negligible, all those who know such people continue to be aggrieved and unhappy; and there spreads from those people an influence of deterioration in the morale of the country. This is not in the interests of Canada's maximum war effort.
I therefore welcome the appointment of the committee, and would urge that it study with the greatest care every aspect of the defence of Canada regulations, and their application to organizations in Canada, to periodicals which have been and are published in Canada, and to individuals who to-day are in our internment camps.


Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place let me welcome to the heavy task of administering the defence of Canada regulations our new Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). I have had something to do with internees, and with those who have been asking for a more liberal and, I think, a stricter administration of the regulations-stricter from the point of view of British justice. I have been impressed by the serious way in which the new minister has devoted himself to the difficult problems involved. I am sure I do not envy him his task. The whole subject is one of grave concern not only to himself and myself, but to all those who have some knowledge of British justice and procedure, and who are determined that we shall not establish in
Canada the gestapo methods of Europe, that we shall be just and kind but at the same time shall protect Canada against anticipated acts of sabotage and treason.
The subject is full of great difficulty, because the principles applied to the administration of criminal law are not applicable here. A man is interned under the defence of Canada regulations as a preventive rather than a punitive measure. The intention is not that of punishing an individual for something he has done; it is to prevent his doing that which it is anticipated he will or even may do, contrary to the best interests of the state. And so the general principles of trial, including the reading of a charge and the hearing of evidence, do not quite apply. Those who have been calling for open trials of men charged under the regulations probably have not thought through the real problem before us. It has occurred to me at times that were some of the objectors placed in positions of responsibility and informed that some person might do something contrary to the interest of the state, they would, perhaps, take a different attitude. It is not likely that they would wait until some alien enemy had blown up a factory before taking action to restrain him. It is more likely that even the most radical critic of the regulations would restrain the offender before the act was committed, rather than charge him with the offence after the damage had been accomplished.
Yet, while this is so, I have never been entirely satisfied either with the regulations or with their administration. I think section 21 is far too general and sweeping. I should like to see the committee apply itself to defining the offences, if offences they are, under which a man may be interned. It may be a difficult task, but it is not an impossible one. It seems to me there should be greater particularity as to the grounds upon which internment may be ordered. The general principles upon which those in authority act can be set out with a great deal of clearness, and the committee should work to that end.
It seems to me that a man should never be interned for something for which he may be charged. Someone who has used foolish language in a bar room debate, or something of that kind, as sometimes happens, should not be picked up by the police and just spirited away. He has committed an offence and should be tried in open court. There have been occasions when, confronted with those two courses of action, the department has chosen internment rather than trial; and I suggest to the department it would be far better to put a man on trial when trial is possible. The evidence should be brought out in public and

Defence of Canada Regulations
the public satisfied as to the justice of the decision; and the man should be put away in gaol rather than placed in an internment camp.
I believe too the public has been disturbed on one or two occasions when trial has been resorted to, a conviction has not been secured and immediately following acquittal a man has been picked up and interned.
The great difficulty with internment is the mystery surrounding the procedure, the lack of publicity allowed, and the fact that no one knows with any degree of certainty the grounds upon which a man has been deprived of his liberty. He is picked up silently, spirited away, and that is the last of him. One may write the department and learn that the case has been reviewed but that for the moment the authorities do not think it necessary to give any further information. That is the substance of what one is told.
It may be difficult indeed to say why some men who have been interned quite properly have been so interned. Nevertheless the secrecy surrounding the administration of the regulation is not in the public interest when it can possibly be avoided. Where possible in my opinion statements should be made and given publicity, explaining why certain men are placed behind barbed wire and kept there. It is most important that the public mind be not disturbed in this connection, and that there be not spread among ordinary people suspicions of injustice or the presence of ulterior motives.
I think that our administration could be improved. At the present moment the Minister of Justice retains the last say. Perhaps that is necessary, but if it is, it is necessary only in a few cases. The tribunals have been too few; they have been overworked. I have thought that they should be manned by the highest judicial officers whom we can find in the Dominion of Canada, men who bear the highest reputation and who carry the confidence of the people of Canada in the highest degree. The tribunals cannot act entirely in public; they must act at least in part in secret. The reasons for their decisions cannot always be explained and published, and the citizens of Canada are expected to accept their decisions and to rely upon their good faith.
So I say that our tribunals should be increased in number, and I believe that recently more men have been acting on the tribunals. I urge upon the department that every precaution be taken to secure for these tribunals men of the highest possible reputation. Having done this, I think it would be in the interests of the department, certainly to the comfort of the minister and the peace of mind of those, who like myself, are con-

cerned, and to the general confidence of the people of Canada, if decisions of the tribunals were taken as final, except in extraordinary cases where reasons can be given for the minister refusing to accept the recommendations of the tribunals.
It is not good enough to say that some evidence must be secret. I should think that a judge can be counted upon to keep secrets of state just as well as a policeman. Reasons of state which should influence the results of a hearing can be communicated to a judge just as safely as they can be communicated to a minister of the crown. I have no doubt that in both cases the secrecy would be respected. Therefore I should like to see done the things I have enumerated: provide stronger tribunals; provide more tribunals; place greater confidence in the tribunals; and have the decisions of the tribunals made final.
I should like to see this committee inquire into a number of key cases, such as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has suggested. They could be picked out by chance, and then the committee could make a report on them to this house. I have been interested in a number of cases, but I have never been able to get to the bottom of them because I could not get all the evidence. But this committee should be able to get the evidence. If its authority is not now sufficient, I suggest to the committee that they ask for added authority and that they apply their minds to a number of cases, particularly where it is suggested that ulterior motives have influenced the action taken by the police or the department.
It has been stated that men have been picked up because they were bootleggers. If a man is a bootlegger, if he has defied the laws of the country, we do not have the same confidence in him as we would had he a good reputation. If a good reputation stands a man in good stead in time of trouble, then a bad reputation is likely to stand him in bad stead. When you find that a man with a bad reputation has been picked up and you do not know all the facts, you are likely to attribute his incarceration to his bad reputation, and that may be unjust to the department.
I have known of cases where the police, after failing to get convictions, have succeeded in imprisoning men under these regulations. I would like to see the committee make a few inquiries as to whether such suspicions are justified or unjustified. I would like to see the department relieve itself of responsibility in individual cases. The imprisoning of men is not properly a ministerial responsibility; it is a judicial responsibility. I do not see why ministers of justice want to keep these deci-

Defence of Canada Regulations
sions in their own hands; they should get rid of them. Keep supervision, if you like; but ministers should rid themselves of the task of making the individual decisions. Let that be done by the tribunals. I cannot see any real reason, either in the practical administration of the act or because of principles of justice, for making any great difference between an alien enemy and a naturalized or native Canadian citizen. At the present time, those who are citizens may have their cases reviewed by the tribunals, but those who have not achieved British citizenship have no right to go beyond the decision of the police as confirmed by the department. A non-citizen may have lived in this country for many years; he may have acted as a citizen for years, but when he is picked up under this act by the police he has no appeal. The only thing he can do is to argue with some officer in the department, who usually refers him to the mounted police.
I know that you can find a grave distinction between a British subject and a non-British citizen, particularly if the latter is an alien enemy; technically, an alien enemy has no rights in this country, but that is not so morally. Such a man is a human being; he may have a wife and children; he may have behind him a long record of good citizenship. I do not see any reason for making this marked distinction, which is purely technical, between a man who has achieved nationality and a man who has not. I can see no reason why an alien enemy should not be treated as we would treat him in the courts. We make no distinction there; in theory every man is innocent until he is proven guilty. We should be ashamed to draw a distinction in the courts between a British subject and a foreigner living in this country. I should like to see the committee study this feature and see if it is not possible to give to the non-citizen the same rights of appeal, the same review of evidence and the same impartial decision by judicial officers that is given to our own citizens.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, in the first place I
desire to congratulate my good friend the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) upon the judicious remarks that he has made. He speaks from a lengthy experience at the bar, as former attorney general for his province, and with a particular knowledge of his subject, and therefore what he has said must be considered in due course.
The aim of the defence regulations is evidently to prevent subversive propaganda during the war. It is essential that order be maintained within this country in these difficult times. But the fact that we are at war
does not change in the slightest degree the principle of law that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty, and therefore a man must not be considered an unworthy Canadian citizen simply because he has a name that is difficult to pronounce. People of various racial origins have come to this country to make Canada their own country. It is their country of choice, and at heart they are good Canadians. There is more broad-mindedness in the United States than in Canada with regard to such people. Anyone who looks at the names of the advisers to the President of the United States must realize that at Washington the racial origin of a man makes no difference whatever provided he, proves to be a worthy citizen of the United States.
Now I want to say a word on behalf of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), in his defence, strange as it may seem. About a year ago the hon. gentleman mentioned a very ordinary fact, a fact known to all of us, that there were young men from other dominions training in Canada under the empire air training scheme. To mention that was not a sin; it was not even a misdemeanour. But as it happened, there was an order or an instruction prohibiting the mentioning of that fact. This order or instruction had been issued by the information bureau or the censor's office in the regulations that it sends out to the newspapers, and as the hon. gentleman had infringed one of those regulations-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Had what?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will not say infringed. I will just say that he mentioned that fact. I do not blame him for doing so. I am speaking in his defence; my hon. friend will see how it ends. I will start again to make myself clear. The information bureau or the censor's office sends regulations or instructions to all the newspapers of Canada. They are numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on; and regulation or instruction No. 64, if my memory serves me-it might have been 62 , 63, 64, or 65-was to the effect that no one must say anything in public about the personnel of the empire air training scheme.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. No such directive was ever issued that no newspaper should give currency to such a report. I deny that either directly or indirectly did I at any time receive from any source anywhere any directive from the censor or anybody else in authority in this country with reference to that matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman for what he has said, because it gives

Defence of Canada Regulations
more weight to my argument. Of course, I did not say that the order or instruction was sent to him. They are sent to every newspaper in the country, and there was certainly an order of the kind. The hon. gentleman simply said something that might have been said by anybody in the country without offence to anybody and without injury to anybody or to the progress of the war. But just because he said that, it was stated by a minister of the crown that Hitler was the leader of the opposition's latest recruit. I repeated that myself, and I confess I did wrong to say a thing like that about the hon. gentleman because he simply mentioned a fact that was known to all of us, and by so doing, of course, he was not recruiting Hitler into the Tory party. Nobody can now be blamed for doing the same thing the hon. gentleman did because this particular order was afterwards cancelled. So that there is no guilt about it. But my conclusion is this, that we must not lack a sense of proportion in our interpretation of the defence regulations.
I regret that the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is leaving the chamber because I was just going to say something about him. I think he completely lacked a sense of proportion when he suggested that we should worship a man like Sir Stafford Cripps. I do not think he is worse than anyone else; but why should anyone worship anyone else in this world? Such an attitude prevents criticism. I would tell the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that the brightest lady journalist of America, a lady whose pen is much sharper than that of Dorothy Thompson, Miss Judith Robinson, has expressed her views about Sir Stafford Cripps in all fairness, and she pokes a little bit of fun at him. That is no offence, any more than it was an offence for the leader of the opposition to say what he did about the empire air training scheme. Miss Judith Robinson wrote in the News of Toronto, of March 14: Enthusiasts for change-any-place-but-Ottawa are doing a lot to drown Sir Stafford Cripps' real virtues in pails of gush over attributes he hasn't and never has had. Tile new leader of the British House of Commons is not a "winning personality." He has a face like a stage undertaker's and a manner like a high church curate's. He is not a great speaker. He is repetitive and addicted to second-hand phrases. He is not, despite a snob-souled local press's blurbs, "an aristocrat." He is the son of a wealthy man whose father made money in shipping.
Sir Stafford would be frank to admit that no English business men ever pursued profit further from the aristocratic ideal of noblesse oblige, or from ordinary human compassion for that matter, than did the big shipmasters of the nineteenth century.
[Mr. Pouliot.l
He would admit it because honesty is a virtue he possesses in his own right, not his ancestors'. He has other virtues that should prove useful to England at this hour; an unswerving purpose, a logical mind, cold judgment and a great lack of pity for incompetents, however well-paid and influential. Canadian sentimentalists who have been cooing-
That is fine.

over Sir Stafford "the labour aristocrat", might spend their time better trying to guess whose fault it is that Ottawa is as short of Crippses as it is short of Churchills.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he not think there is a difference between poking fun at ourselves, or having a member of the family poke fun at us, and having a guest poke fun at us?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am a little hard of hearing. If my hon. friend will repeat what he said I shall be thankful to him.


Major James William Coldwell: I ask my hon. friend if he did not think there was a difference between having a member of our own family poke fun at another member of the family and having an uninvited guest poke fun at a member of the family? I think there is a big difference there.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not a matter of guests; it is a matter of judgment on a man who plays an important role in politics at the present time. But because a politician is not a member of our House of Commons does not mean that we have not a right to pass judgment on his qualifications. Besides that, I wonder what has happened to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar; for a certain time he has been burning incense under the noses of people who are too far away to smell the perfume.


Major James William Coldwell: That is very good.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking of perfume, I hold in my hand that reputable paper, the New York Times, Monday, October 27, 1941. It is a good paper and full of information. Here, on page 3, I see an item which has passed both the British and United States censors and has reached the newsroom of the Times and its readers:
London, Oct. 26 (U.P.)-Viscount Halifax, British Ambassador to the United States, came in to-day for another drubbing for a recent speech in which he said that Britain was in no position to invade the continent.
"His very name stinks in my nostrils," Robert Gegood, former chairman of the Northern Ireland Labour party, said at a conference in Belfast. He spoke in support of a resolution demanding Lord Halifax's resignation.
That is from London. It is too bad that the perfume of the incense was not effective

Defence of Canada Regulations
on that occasion. But we can gather a great lesson; it is that as a rule people attach no more importance than they should to things like that-mere expressions of opinion about a man. No one shall suffer in his person because he says what he thinks of anybody except the royal family, for whom we all have great respect. We have, and we must have, freedom of opinion and freedom of speech. This, we are told, is what we are fighting for. We are fighting for democracy, we are fighting for free speech. I recall that an eminent member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group used to advocate freedom of speech and claim the right to it, but it was freedom of speech for himself, not for others. My conception of freedom of speech is that which I expressed once in this chamber when the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) was speaking and was interrupted by the chairman of the committee of the whole.
I said that my idea of liberalism, my idea of liberty and of democracy was that he should say all he had to say provided that I had the right to answer him and say afterwards all I had to say. That is true freedom of speech. Freedom of speech cannot be onesided, we must have it on both sides. Moreover, there is nothing so constructive as good criticism. Nobody here pretends that he is infallible. Last week the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) admitted that he did not pretend that everything in his department was perfect. That was a common sense admission, and I laud the minister for it. Therefore, if all is not perfect, if there is room for improvement, freedom of criticism is necessary. But the distinction must be made, first, as to the intent of the one who expresses his views, and secondly, regarding the effect of what is said. Those two considerations must be weighed before judgment is reached in the case of any individual. Well, now, when we are fighting for the liberty of all of us, it is essential that the moves of any in this country who would prevent such an aim shall be stopped. That, I concede, is in the public interest. But it would not be in the public interest to make no distinction between what would be helpful and what would be harmful.
In conclusion, may I say that there should be, particularly in time of war, the widest freedom of speech, at least- in this house. We should follow the really great parliamentary traditions of Westminster, where members of parliament and members of the House of Lords are not afraid to express themselves freely for the benefit of the community. The defence regulations have a particular purpose, namely to set rules regarding the press of this country. Might I remind the house why the press was so influential in days gone by? It

was so because especially in London at first, and then in France and in other countries, people who had no time to study political matters at length relied on the free expression of views of a man who was seeing things objectively, without prejudice or partisanship. That was the success of the London Times, and in those days newspapers were not as big as they are to-day. They were not controlled by people who paid high rates for advertising in their columns. The man in the street, the common citizen, relied on the editor for an objective and honest expression of views and objective comments on the situation of the day. It would be very useful if the same thing were done now and if the newspapers went back to the files of the London Times and even of the Canadian newspapers of forty and fifty years ago to find a model for the editorial page of to-day.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: There is one feature of this motion which should be explained to the house by the minister, and that is that the powers being given to the committee have been restricted this year as compared with the powers given to the committee of last year. Hon. members will find the motion appointing last year's committee in the Votes and Proceedings for February 20, 1941. That motion provided that the committee to be appointed should consider and review the defence of Canada regulations (consolidation) 1940 and amendments thereto and-this is the part that has been cut out this year-the law relating to naturalization, and to review as well the law relating to deportation. The report of the committee will be found in the Votes and Proceedings of June 4. That part which dealt with naturalization and deportation reads:
Your committee has received some evidence and has investigated these two important subjects in part only and, notwithstanding the fact that your committee has held a great many meetings, including on occasions two meetings a day, the limited time at our command has made it impossible to devote the time to these subjects which they require in order to enable a proper report to be made to the house.
Your committee therefore respectfully begs to recommend that at the next session of the house the law relating to naturalization and deportation and matters incidental thereto be the subject matter of a reference to a committee of the house.
A similar recommendation was made by the committee which sat in 1940, so that for two successive years we have had a recommendation from the defence of Canada regulations committee that naturalization and deportation be considered; yet we find that, in the notice of motion which is before us to-day, the power to consider these subjects is not

Defence of Canada Regulations
included. It may very well be that the government plans to set up another committee, and if that is so I have no objection to the wording of the present motion. On the other hand, it may be that the government is dropping these two questions, and that I think would be a great mistake, because at this time particularly they are of the greatest importance to the nation, and should be most carefully considered either by the committee which is being set up now or by another special committee. And they should be considered at this session of the house. I would ask the minister therefore to explain just what the government intends to do with regard to these subjects, and I would urge him most earnestly either to amend this notice of motion so as to give this committee power to consider these two subjects, as well as the defence of Canada regulations, or to recommend to the ministry that they set up a committee to deal with these two subjects alone.


Mr. A. G. SLAGHT (Parry Sound):: I desire to ally myself with the suggestion by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), that if the setting up of another committee to deal with the two topics of naturalization and deportation is not contemplated, the minister might consider amending this resolution so as to include that power in the present committee.
I want to join with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) who both recorded the fact that the work of this committee last year- and I think they would include the previous years-has proceeded in a splendid and nonpartisan spirit; and without detracting at all from the work of each and every member, because they were all wholesomely engaged in the public interest, I think perhaps the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and the member for Vancouver South contributed in very large measure to the happy condition under which the work of that committee proceeded.
As a member of that committee I do not want to intrude on the house at this stage any views with regard to what the committee should do. Things change so fast in these days that I believe we should bide our time and hear, as we always do, what is to be said with regard to conditions as they exist at the time the committee is sitting. I do want to pay a tribute to the work done by the late minister of justice in administering the most difficult and embarrassing duties that fell upon him while he presided over that department. The late minister, when

war broke in September, 1939, was plunged into a series of duties entirely new to his office. He had literally hundreds upon hundreds of cases to review because of the fact that alien enemies of German descent were picked up by our mounted police in hundreds all across Canada. Later, when war broke with Italy on June 10, and in the following year, he was again faced with an overwhelming task because of the Italian racial origin enemy aliens who were again picked up in twenty-four and forty-eight hours all across Canada. He did not have the protection that amendments made at the suggestion of this committee had brought into being, and which exist at the present moment. While of course mistakes may have been made-and who could administer that serious duty without finding errors creeping in?-Canada is deeply indebted to the late minister of justice, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, who did not spare himself in the administration of that difficult and disagreeable but most important task.
Having said this may I pay a much deserved tribute to the present Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) who finds on his shoulders this tremendous burden. I believe in the short time he has been charged with this duty he has brought to bear all the high qualities which he was expected to display in his very important office. And none the less are the people of Canada indebted to the present minister for the very splendid manner in which he has performed this duty.
Without attempting to make a case one way or the other may I warn the house not to be too expectant that the results of the deliberations of this committee this year will bring about some of the changes suggested in the utmost good faith by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck). As I understand, he wants to see the Minister of Justice freed from the burden of making individual decisions. If we should make that change we should entirely reverse the principle involved both in the defence of the realm regulations that have prevailed in Britain since the war broke out and in the defence of Canada regulations. The hon. member for Trinity also suggested that men should never be interned for something with which they might be charged in the criminal courts. I suggest to him that again there may be disappointment. The reason the defence of Canada regulations ignore the ordinary precepts observed in the administration of the criminal law in peace time is that they are brought into being because we are at war, and because we cannot afford to wait until a man has performed a criminal act, thereby furnishing the evidence upon which he can be convicted in a court of

Defence of Canada Regulations
justice. The whole scheme both of the British an<J of the Canadian regulations is to prevent a man of evil character and evil record, once you fix him with those qualities, from being at large so that it is possible for him to blow up the Welland canal or the Revelstoke tunnel in war time. That is the spirit of the regulation, and that is why we must ask forbearance and understanding from people if the committee this year should see fit to continue that principle rather than do away with it.
I think it is proper at this stage to point out why we should not abandon either of those principles. In this war both Britain and Canada have been singularly free from any serious acts of sabotage crippling our war effort. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and myself, with some of our colleagues, a few months ago had the privilege of discussing this subject with Mr. Herbert Morrison, the British Secretary of State, who under the British Defence of the Realm Act administers the duties that here we place upon the Minister of Justice. I regret for this reason, if for no other, that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is not to be on the committee this year. Mr. Morrison in a very few minutes gave us his view as to why during war time it was necessary and desirable to continue to vest in one man the power of final decision, rather than to leave it to be determined by a trial in the courts, as to whether a man was so dangerous that he ought to be interned. Mr. Morrison told us that he wished he had never had to perform that duty, that practically every week somebody in the press or from the public platform attacked him viciously and personally in respect to what was contended to be a case of injustice. But while regretting that he was charged with the duty, he made it very clear to us that he thought the success of the police in preventing all acts of sabotage or destruction in Britain was due largely to the defence of the realm regulations just in the form in which they stood. Hon. members will recall that there has been no single case of sabotage of any consequence in Canada, after nearly three years of war, and that these regulations have been in effect practically from the first week of the war. Hon. members will not forget that in the last war, when we had no such highly organized internal secret service force as the mounted police were at the beginning of this war, in the first year very serious acts of sabotage were attempted, and some carried out-all engineered with the help of German money from New York; for instance, the attempt to blow up the Vance-boro bridge; to blow up the Welland canal;
the attempt-which succeeded-to blow up the overall factory at Walkerville; the attempt to blow up the Windsor armouries, to blow up the Revelstoke tunnel. All these were attempts which nearly succeeded, whereas under our present system the defence of Canada regulations and the alertness of the splendid force under the Minister of Justice have saved us from any of these possible disasters in the conduct of this war.
I have spoken for longer than I had intended. I believe that as things change so fast we could well spend some time on the problem of the banning of the communist party. In approaching that subject the house may feel that the committee should bear in mind that the communist party as such and our ally Russia are not just one and the same thing. There is a fallacious belief that such is the fact, but it is not.
The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said that in the administration of these regulations we must never abandon the principle that a man is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. I am afraid my hon. friend has never studied the regulations. Both the British regulations and ours do not recognize that well-established principle of British law which is observed in the administration of the criminal courts. Instead we go upon the theory that with responsible officials and a minister of high standing charged with the duty, a man who has not been proven guilty before any court may be and ought to be put behind the palisades before he gets a chance to do a wrong the consequences of which may be irreparable and may go to the very root of the success of the country in winning the war


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, since there is in my constituency in Toronto a very considerable Italian community, and since I have known some of those people for the last twenty-five years I should like to say a word or two with respect to the committee now to be set up. Perhaps I ought not to say anything, because this may be a matter upon which lawyers are more able to pass judgment than would be a layman. But since Italy entered the war to fight against us I have seen a great deal of distress in my part of the city. I do not know whether any of the acts committed against the Italian citizens have been deserved, but I am sure that quite a number have suffered through no fault of their own.
In the last war the Italian community in Toronto sent a considerable number of soldiers overseas to fight alongside Canadian soldiers. Many of those Italians came back

Defence of Canada Regulations
badly wounded; quite a number were killed in action, and to-day many of them belong to that branch of the legion which operates in my end of the city. I believe, however, that some of those citizens have suffered rather unfairly during the present war. A case I have in mind, which I shall outline to the house, is one of a class which I should hope some of the regulations might cover. If so, I should wish that such regulations might be reviewed by the committee.
The young man I have in mind is now thirty to thirty-five years of age. At the time of the great war he was a lad of only four or five years. His father had been a United States citizen before the great war, but shortly before the outbreak of that war he came to Canada bringing his young children with him. They have lived in Toronto ever since as good, law-abiding citizens. Shortly after Italy entered this war the young man in question, in company with a number of others, was at once set upon by, I presume, the police. This one in particular consulted a solicitor in down-town Toronto to find out if he must submit to attacks by the police. He had been told by them that he was not a British citizen. The fact is that he was bom in the United States.
Following his seeing a solicitor he came to see me, and as a result of his visit I wrote the Department of Justice, setting out full particulars. I did not ask for redress, stating in my letter nothing but the bare facts. The department replied with a very friendly letter stating that since the boy's father was a naturalized British citizen who had come here prior to the great war, the children were British citizens too and exempt from police check, so long as they were law-abiding citizens. I sent that letter to the young man. Following that, it is said that his solicitor sent him a bill for $175. That solicitor had done no more than I had.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: He could have the
solicitor's bill taxed.


An hon. MEMBER:: What did you charge?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do things free; I do not charge anything for anything I do.
I do not believe any person of non-English origin should be subjected to such treatment simply because he is not of British origin.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I think my hon. friend misunderstood my interruption. I pointed out that the person in question could have the solicitor's bill taxed if it is too high.


An hon. MEMBER:: Meaning what?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: "Meaning what?" an hon. member to my right asks. We have an office

connected with the courts of Ontario whose duty it is to review solicitors' bills. If my hon. friend would submit that bill to the taxing officer, the right amount would be substituted.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall send a copy of to-day's Hansard to the gentleman in question, and he may take the bill and Hansard to the taxing officer to see if he can get redress. After Italy went into the war Italians in Toronto were generally more or less-I will not say persecuted, but many of them were.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: "Persecuted" is right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I suppose they preferred to grin and bear anything inflicted upon them rather than protest, and I believe that was the condition in this instance.
Quite a number of Italians in my constituency have enlisted and have gone overseas to serve in the present war. I have in mind the father of a family of six or eight children, two of whom are in the army. That father, however, has been picked up and placed in an internment camp. I have not written the Minister of Justice about him, because I do not know whether a layman may properly report matters of that kind. The fact is, however, that the father has been interned for some time. On a number of occasions his wife has been to see me, and I have seen her hair change from jet black to gray, from worrying about her husband, the head of the house, who has been placed in the internment camp.
If internment regulations are to be reviewed I should hope that some regulations might be made whereby a man might have an opportunity to present his case before a legal tribunal. I do not know anything about law or courts; I am not a lawyer. But under present regulations such people do not appear to have a chance. The man I have in mind has been in the camp ever since Italy entered the war, despite the fact that he has two sons in the army. So far as I know the family has always been loyal, and I should hope that regulations affecting such people might be applied with a certain amount of sympathy and British fair play.
Certainly I would be opposed to the release of anyone who should be interned. I agree with the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) when he said in effect that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. If any person of any non-British nationality is known to be a person of dangerous proclivities, then I say that such person is better in a camp than out of it. But with respect to the ordinary humble citizen who could not under any circumstances be considered dangerous, and particularly a citizen who has been here

Defence of Canada Regulations
for thirty or forty years, I say that such person ought not to suffer unnecessarily. On the other hand, for those who are guilty I have no sympathy.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has already covered most of the representations hon. members in this group wish to make, and I do not purpose repeating what he has said. I rise merely to endorse his observations.
There is, however, one organization I would refer to the special committee, if it is going to consider questions affecting organizations which have been declared illegal. I refer to the organization generally known as Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe I have discussed this matter before in the last two years. No satisfactory statement has thus far come from the treasury benches as to why the organization has been declared illegal. I do not know how many of those responsible for the administration of the regulations have read the literature of the organization. In those years when I had more time for diversified reading I read many of the books published by the organization, as well as those published by other sects. While I disagree most heartily with their point of view, not only on religious matters but also on social matters, I have never been able to satisfy myself that any of the doctrines which they preach are of such a nature as to be subversive of Canada's war effort.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It discourages them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My hon. friend says that it discourages them. At the present time there is one sect which is preaching that before this war is over we shall be joined with Hitler in a war against the U.S.S.R. I do not agree with them, and I do not suppose that the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) agrees with them, but there is no talk about banning that organization. That would be absurd. There is a religious organization in Canada which is opposed to the bearing of arms, and which teaches that belief. That is not particularly encouraging to our war effort, but no one in this house would suggest that an organization like that should be banned. It is most difficult to define what is meant by discouraging the war effort. It is different to say that a certain point of view discourages the war effort from saying that a certain doctrine is subversive of the war effort.
For the last two or three years I have made up a file from clippings from newspapers in Canada giving accounts of arrests of and fines imposed against various people connected
with this so-called Jehovah's Witnesses organization, and this file has grown at an alarming rate. I quote one from Campbellton, New Brunswick, as follows:
Two Montreal women, Mrs. Francis Bower and Mrs. Loretta Appleby, were found guilty of a breach of the defence of Canada regulations by Sitting Magistrate J. N. Bugold in police court to-day. He ordered that the two accused each pay a fine of $300 and costs, or in default of payment that they serve a term of six months in jail. The two took the jail terms.
There was a case in my own community where a business man was charged on two counts, one that he was a member of an illegal organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses-there was no proof of that except that he had been associated with them some time before, but he contended that he had had no contact with them since-and, second, that he had said in conversation that in his opinion Canada was not a Christian country, but a country with Christian people in it. I have heard that statement made from scores of pulpits of different Protestant denominations. It is merely expressing a difference in point of view as to what is meant by a Christian country. This man was fined, I think $200. Fortunately he was able to pay it and did not have to take the gaol sentence. That sort of thing encourages the kind of people who like to run around telling tales or reporting to the police that they had heard in conversation that some one else had heard some one else say such a thing. In this particular case they had the evidence of only one woman, but that was considered sufficient to substantiate a charge being made against a responsible citizen of Canada. That is not good for the morale of this country. We should not do anything that will encourage tale-bearing and informing.
I have under my hand a piece of literature published by that organization entitled "Consolation, a Journal of Fact, Hope and Courage." This is published in Brooklyn, New York, but it is banned in Canada under the defence of Canada regulations. I am told that this is allowed to circulate in Great Britain, Australia and the United States. I do not know why it is banned here. I have read it through, and while I do not agree with ninety-nine per cent of what it says, I cannot understand why it has been banned. It is most intolerant of other religious groups, and it refers in the most virulent terms to the profession to which I belong. I have no reason to hold any brief for the points of view expressed in a periodical of this sort, but I cannot find anything in it that I can conscientiously say is subversive of Canada's war effort. The fact that it is intolerant, the

Defence of Canada Regulations
fact that it finds fault with people who hold views different from the views expressed therein, is not sufficient to warrant its being banned in Canada or to warrant the people who publish it being subject to a fine or imprisonment.
We are following a serious tack when we allow this sort of thing to go on. We are going to make martyrs out of certain groups of people. There are people who want nothing so much as to be made martyrs. What is being done is to drive them underground, give some of them the halo of martyrdom and permit many of them to protest that they are suffering for their faith and are being persecuted by those who belong to other religious organizations and other churches in Canada. I urge upon the committee and upon the minister that if they are going to examine the question of illegal organizations, we ought to have a more satisfactory and more comprehensive statement as to why this organization has been banned than we have had up to now.
It has almost become platitudinous to refer to President Roosevelt's four freedoms. We keep on telling the people in the democratic countries that we are fighting for the four freedoms, one of which is the freedom to worship God in the manner in which we choose. It seems to me that it is going to be increasingly difficult to convince the world that we are seeking to get religious freedom for the people of Europe when we deny it to the people of Canada. This itself, in its own way, is an encroachment upon religious freedom. Whether we agree or disagree

I imagine that the great majority of us disagree -with the points of view expressed by that religious sect, I think we do ourselves an injustice and our cause an injustice by continuing to declare them an illegal organization when there is no specific evidence to prove that their efforts and their beliefs are subversive of Canada's war effort.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the subject under discussion has been considered most thoroughly, but because of the reference made by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) to one or two matters, I feel that as a member of this committee I should say something at this time. I fully support the plea made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) that consideration should be given to the naturalization laws of Canada and the method by which new citizens are admitted to Canadian nationality. There is great need to consider this matter, either through the agency of this particular committee or through a special committee which 
may be set up. The naturalization laws of Canada are in a most deplorable state. I refer not only to the methods by which citizens are naturalized, but to the laws themselves. They present a most ridiculous situation.
We have a situation where people in our country are, to use a technical phrase, "heimathlos"-"without a home"-who have no nationality at all or who have a nationality in one part of the commonwealth, and although residing in Canada have no nationality whatsoever according to the laws of Canada. This situation should be remedied at the earliest possible moment.
There is another matter I should like to impress upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). In this connection he has given indications of dispatch. I agree with what the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) has said, that when a nation is at war one cannot stop to question at the outset whether or not a particular person should be interned on the basis of suspicion, or on the basis of a very slight rumour, or upon the slightest evidence for that matter. But one thing cannot be justified, and it is one thing for which there is occasion for criticism. When a man is interned, whether it be upon complaints or upon slight evidence, there can be no justification for keeping him interned month after month without a hearing. Even since the advent of the present Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), and with the setting up of additional committees, there are cases still where the dispatch does not satisfy me. One instance I know of is where a man had been interned. He was readily given his freedom after some urgency was indicated, when it was pointed out that his wife was dying. As a matter of fact, the man was let out the day after his wife died, and no evidence at all had been found against him. In that case the reason for the delay was that the reporter had been assigned to another job outside the government service and had not transcribed the evidence. Because of the dilatoriness of that particular reporter, a man who had been in this country for forty-two years, a man who could not read or write, remained interned-a man who had been found to be innocent. That cannot be justified, and for the reason that I am going to mention.
The house may recall that several months ago I put on the order paper a question concerning one Otto Strasser. The Prime Minister in replying to that question suggested that I might in view of the circumstances seek an interview with the under-secretary of state for external affairs, Mr. Norman Robertson, and examine the file in connection with this man. I have seen the file, and I think any hon. member who has had that opportunity, which

Defence of Canada Regulations
I am sure is open to any member of this house, will realize that I am restricted in discussing this matter in so far as saying how Otto Strasser got into this country and that sort of thing.
Mr. Otto Strasser was one of the founders of the nazi party. His brother, Gregor, associated with him, played a very important part in the early days of the Brown Shirt movement in Germany, particularly in northern Germany, and while there is other evidence in the books written by Otto Strasser that he does not like Hitler, and has no love for Goering or Goebbels, his writings since his break with Hitler, writings while he was in Europe and since he has been in Canada, do not satisfy me that he is not of the view still that Germany can be restored to her former status, first by removing Hitler, and then by setting up in principle some kind of state which the philosophers of the nazi movement contemplated, and which theoretically Hitler may be assumed to support.
I do not want to do an injustice to any man. I have heard Mr. Otto Strasser speak in my own city of Windsor. I have heard him condemn Hitler. I have heard him tell the people of that city that Hitler was a menace and that those immediately associated with him were a menace. I have heard him say that the only way in which Germany could be beaten was by a distribution of pamphlets. He certainly circumscribed the possibilities of an offensive against Germany. I am not saying that there are not reasons why Otto Strasser should not find an asylum in this country. I am not commenting on that for the reason I have mentioned in reference to the departmental file, but I am saying that his writings do indicate where his sympathies lie in so far as the character of the state he would set up is concerned. Yet we have no hesitation in interning men who are citizens of this country. In many instances that is justifiable, no doubt, but I find it very difficult to see how we can carry out certain forms of internment and yet give asylum to a man who helped to set up in being the national socialist system of which Hitler is the exponent-and give the man an asylum without any restraint upon his movements.
It is significant that Mr. Otto Strasser was denied the right of entering the United States. He was refused a visa for reasons that are best known to the state department of the United States, reasons which I think should be considered in discussing this matter.
Mr. Otto Strasser has written to me and complained about my point of view. I suspect that he will write to me to-morrow after he reads what I have said to-day. That is
perhaps his privilege. To show me his position he sent me one of his books. I have read that book and, after reading it, I still have found no reason for changing the point of view I have to-day in regard to that gentleman.
One final thought, Mr. Speaker. I should have liked to hear the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party say here to-day that the committee had considered the question of the internment of labour leaders. As a member of that committee, I would certainly not support the internment of any man on the mere ground that he was an organizer of labour. I would not support the internment of any man simply because he was trying to encourage the principle of collective bargaining in any part of this country. But I must say that the committee is not aware nor should the house be led to believe that men have been interned simply because they were labour leaders. That is not fair to labour; it is not fair to the administration; it is not fair to the members of this house; and I think when the Minister of Justice speaks he ought to make clear, as I am sure he will, that no man has been interned in this country simply because he was an organizer of labour, but that there were ancillary reasons for his internment.
I welcome the opportunity of serving once again on this committee, and I know that I shall, along with the other members of the committee, try to give this matter the careful consideration which it requires and deserves.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the address of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Martin), I, as a member of the committee on the defence of Canada regulations at the first session of this parliament, want to join with my hon. friend in saying that at no time during the period I was a member of that committee did anything come before it which in any way suggested that any man had been interned in Canada by reason alone of his activities as a labour leader, or that any man had been interned who ought not to have been interned in the interests of the safety of the state at the time of his internment.
While I entirely agree that in the declaration of principles for which this empire now contends the freedoms occupy a very large and important position, nevertheless I think all of us recognize that in the interests of the safety of the state those rights of which British citizenship ordinarily consists must be sacrificed. The safety of the state must-be paramount.
I congratulate the new Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) upon the way in which

Defence of Canada Regulations
he has proceeded with the administration of these difficult regulations. Those of us who have been connected for many years with the Canadian Bar Association knew, when he was appointed Minister of Justice, that he would carry on his high office in the best British and Canadian traditions. In the administration of the regulations he has removed one of the most serious objections thereto; in that, having set up an advisory committee to investigate whether a person should continue to be interned, he has accepted the recommendations of the committee and in every case has discharged those against whom the committee found no guilt.
The matter raised by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) with regard to the banning of religious institutions, and in particular Jehovah's Witnesses, could very well be met if an amendment were made to the regulations providing the banned organizations with the right of appeal, giving them an opportunity of showing that they are in fact not illegal and that their activities are not nor have been subversive of the war effort. If that were done, I believe the only serious objection which remains against the administration of the defence of Canada regulations would be removed.
There is, however, another matter which is in fact the reason why I rose to make these few remarks. There is one man whose internment and release should, I believe, be explained by the minister. One thing we do not want any of the people to believe is that, in the administration of these regulations, wealth or position shall count for aught. I refer to the case of James Franceschini, the well-known contractor of the city of Toronto, who was interned shortly after the outbreak of war between Italy and the British empire. I believe the time has come' when the minister should explain to the house and to the country the situation with respect to this man, about whom there has been so much speculation and concerning whose release there has been so much discussion. I think it is only fair to ask the minister to answer this question: was James Franceschini guiltless? Was a grave mistake made in his internment or in keeping him in internment for a period of almost one year? I would point out that no satisfactory explanation was given by the Department of Justice when he was released. It was stated that he was released on the ground of ill-health, and that therefore clemency was extended to him. All members and former members of the committee are agreed that it has been necessary in all parts of the empire 
to remove some of the ordinary rights of British citizenship-rights to which the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) referred and for whose abrogation he advanced cogent arguments-and to disregard certain well-known principles of the criminal law. Since when did it become justifiable to release because of ill-health, if he was not guiltless, a man who was interned in order to prevent him from carrying on wrongful activities against the state? Ill health is not an explanation; it is an excuse. If Franceschini was innocent it is only fair to him that the government should publicly admit it, as the government of Great Britain has invariably done at Westminster when it has made a mistake. If he was guilty, where is the justification for releasing an interned man in time of war on the ground of ill health?
I might add in this connection that on April 20 a sessional paper, a return to an order made by this house in regard to Mr. Franceschini, was brought down. I had asked certain questions, including these:
2.	During the period of his internment, who had control of his property and assets?
3.	Was he at the time of his internment interested as shareholder, officer, or otherwise in any companies? If so, what companies?
4.	During the period of his internment, (a)
did any of the said companies . . . have contracts . . . ?	... (c) if so, give particulars
of the location and of the amounts of each of the said contracts. . . .
Finally:	.
6. Did the government purchase any of the said companies or other assets . . . ?
Here is a strange situation: a man interned who is a majority shareholder in certain companies and a minority shareholder in others, and yet during the period of his internment his companies were being operated by the directors under the control of the custodian of enemy property. Dufferin Construction Company Limited, Dufferin Sales Company Limited and subsidiary companies, a large number, some fifteen or eighteen, in which he was interested, were operating during the period of his incarceration. No doubt, when he was released, the profits earned during the time that he was in custody were returned to him, although as to this question the return says that the authorities are unable to say.
When he was finally discharged, after his companies had received from the government contracts running into the millions, the government purchased from him the shipbuilding company in which he was interested. During the period of his internment Dufferin Paving and Crushed Stone Company Limited, in which he was a shareholder, had a contract for the construction of ground services at

Defence of Canada Regulations
Hagersville, Ontario, in the amount of $134,496, and Dufferin Paving Company Limited had a contract for paving roads, et cetera, at Swift Current for $34,530. During his internment contracts were entered into with Dufferin Shipbuilding Company Limited, controlled in whole or in part by him, to the extent of several million dollars as follows: October 23,	1940, mine-sweeping vessels,
$1,316,852; April 9, 1941, supply of four minesweeping vessels, $2,699,568; June 2, 1941, mine-sweepers, $2,530,817. Finally, when he was released the government cancelled outstanding contracts by agreement and purchased the outstanding shares of the capital stock of Dufferin Shipbuilding Company for $975,000. Why an enemy of the country, if he was an enemy, while he remained interned should have been able to carry on his business affairs under the custodian of alien enemy property and then on his discharge receive the profits requires an explanation. The minister may come before the house and the country and explain that a mistake was made and that this man was innocent. I am of opinion that it will be very difficult for the government otherwise to explain the matter satisfactorily. It may be noted that the only ground for his release given at the time of his discharge was his serious illness.
In conclusion, let me say that I had the honour to belong to the defence of Canada regulations committee during the first session. As has been stated by the hon. member for Parry Sound whose distinguished career as a lawyer added lustre to the committee, and also by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), if ever there was a committee of this parliament that was a model for others it is this one. Members of the committee worked together without any considerations of party or party benefit, with one end and one end only, namely, the assistance of this country at this time. While mistakes no doubt have been made; while improvements in the regulations have had to be incorporated from time to time in the original regulations, the record to date has been one that justifies the existence and continuance of this committee.
I join with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) in asking that the committee be given an opportunity as well to look into the matter of naturalization and deportation. If I understood rightly, at the present time aliens who are British subjects and are interned for wrongdoing, cannot be deported a.t the conclusion of hostilities, and recommendations should be made with regard thereto at the earliest possible moment.


Joseph William Noseworthy: More than two months ago a deputation from the civil liberties' association met the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), and other ministers of the crown and made certain recommendations with regard to the enforcement of the defence of Canada regulations. We have asked repeatedly for a report from the minister regarding the consideration which these representations have received and the extent to which they have been followed. That report was promised to us over the Prime Minister's signature before the Easter recess.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: And has been ready for the last six weeks for presentation at any time the hon. member chose to ask for it.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Then we may expect from the minister a report when he is speaking to this motion.
In the second place, I would call the attention of the minister and members of the committee to three widespread suspicions which I have found all across Ontario with regard to the defence of Canada regulations. There is a widespread suspicion that communists are being interned because they are communists. It is in the interests of our war effort that every possible measure be taken to remove that suspicion from the public mind. If I were a communist; if I were more interested in the spread of communism than in our war effort, I would desire nothing more than to see communist leaders interned, whereby they become public heroes and their cause becomes popular with their people and with others.
The second suspicion that I have found, notwithstanding statements made here this afternoon, is that men have been interned because of their work in labour organizations. We have already had the assurance of members of the committee that no person has been interned on these grounds.


Mr. MITCHELL:: When the hon. member speaks of labour organizations, to what does he refer?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am referring to activity in labour organizations.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is a pretty broad term.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Or union activity, if you wish to narrow the term. That suspicion should be removed. It is a remarkable coincidence that so many of those persons who have been interned have been at the same time very active in trade unionism, and I am quite sure that that widespread suspicion is a deterrent to our war effort to-day.

Defence of Canada Regulations
A third suspicion abroad which this committee should remove is that' the present administration is much too favourable to those of nazi and fascist tendencies or mentality. Two examples have been called to our attention this afternoon. There is a widespread feeling that a great many who are interested in the spread of nazism and fascism are being, if not aided and abetted, at least overlooked by the authorities, while those who are active in the spread of genuine democracy, which will establish the four freedoms that we hear so much about, are being picked up and interned. I do not think for a moment that we should be so desirous of being democratic as to permit the use of democratic principles for the destruction of democracy itself; but if the defence of Canada regulations are there to promote our war effort, they are defeating their purpose in these three respects at least.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I shall not ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to avail myself of the kind invitation of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) to make any formal address to the house at this time on this subject. I think it is one of the subjects connected with the fact that we are at war and that we should get on with the work we have to do with perhaps as little talking about it as is compatible with a proper performance of the undertaking itself. There are, however, a few things which I should like to touch upon with regard to remarks that have been offered by hon. members in the course of the debate this afternoon.
First of all I wish to thank all the hon. members who have participated in the debate for the very helpful suggestions that have been made, which I am sure will receive the careful consideration of this committee as soon as it gets down to the work it is appointed to perform. With respect to the three suspicions mentioned by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) as being in the mind of the public at large with regard to the manner in which the defence of Canada regulations are administered, I should like to say that almost at once a report was prepared on the representations of the Civil Liberties' Association of Toronto, and I have had it in my envelope here for several weeks to be brought before the house at any time an inquiry about it might be made. I may add that for several days, as soon as other perhaps more vital issues were disposed of, I have been considering asking for an opportunity to make a statement to the house, but have refrained from doing so because the representatives of that league have asked

for another conference with me about it and I am to meet them at ten o'clock to-morrow morning.
The question having been raised, I should like to say to the hon. member for York South that these representations were seven in number. The first was that a statement of policy be made to the effect that regulation 21 will not be applied in cases where there is merely trade union activity or participation in a strike, and that an amendment to that effect, such as is contained in paragraph 1 of regulation 7, be made to regulation 21. I proposed to answer, and I do now answer, that it has not been and is not now the policy to detain a person because of trade union activities or participation in a strike; and that an amendment to regulation 21 along the lines suggested has now been made and will, I hope, ensure that this policy will continue to be carried into effect.
The second representation was that regulation 21 should be revised as in the United Kingdom to point more precisely to the class of action intended to be dealt with by the regulation. This matter was fully discussed before the special committee of the house in 1940 and again in 1941, and the present wording of the regulation was maintained on the report of that committee. We have felt that it was desirable to have the investigation of this year's committee before venturing to make any change in the phraseology of the regulation.
The third representation was that consideration be given in each particular case as to whether procedure should be by way of action in the courts rather than by internment, and that a person who had been acquitted by the courts should not thereafter be interned. This procedure is already being followed wherever it is found that there is evidence which would justify us in believing that a conviction for the offence would be obtained under the regulation. Where a person has been acquitted by the courts on a charge laid, detention has not been and is not being effected unless there are other grounds than those connected with the charge investigated by the court. As has already been stated in the house, wherever detention or internment is contemplated a summary of the grounds is drawn up and submitted to a committee, and no internment has been ordered for several months unless there was a report from this committee, which is an interdepartmental committee on which the Department of Justice is not represented. That has been the practice for several months. The order provides that the internee, immediately upon arrest, shall be detained in

Defence of Canada Regulations
the local gaol, not sent to an internment camp, until he has had an opportunity of stating whether he objects to internment, or the thirty days' delay has expired. If he objects to internment he is not sent to a concentration camp until one of these advisory boards has tried the issue. Hon. members know now that at the opening of the session and every four weeks while the house is in session a report of the number of cases dealt with under section 21 is required to be filed, and it has been my good fortune to be able to report to this house that not one recommendation of an advisory board has been disregarded.
The fourth representation was that a recognized representative of the trade unions be appointed as a member of the advisory committees under regulation 22, and that one other member be a person who has held high judicial office. A new advisory committee has recently been appointed, because we found there were a large number of cases still to be dealt with. Hon. members may believe that I feel just as keenly as any one of them how unfortunate it is to detain anyone who should not be interned, and I have felt that it was most urgent that these cases be considered with as great expedition as is consistent with a fair hearing and a proper decision. A new committee has recently been appointed to help expedite the work of hearing these appeals as it were, of considering the cases of those who are still interned, and it was our good fortune to be able to secure the services of a representative member of the trade unions to serve on this additional committee.
With respect to that part of the recommendation that one member of the committee be a person who has held high judicial office, the chairmen of the three committees now in operation are: one a county court judge, one a former county court judge, and the third a member of the magistrate's court of the province of Quebec.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
the minister say that is a high judicial office?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They do not measure up.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, these are not gentlemen who have occupied high judicial office. But so far we have found that the way in which they have performed their duties has been very satisfactory. The situation with respect to high judicial office throughout several of the provinces is such that it would be difficult to get the services of such men for these committees unless we increase the numbers of members of the courts. There
are already members of some of our high courts serving in various capacities in war activities, and if we were to require more of our high court judges to serve in this work it would be essential to increase the number of appointees. It is an unforutnate fact that several members of our courts in several of the provinces are in poor health. If we took from those performing the ordinary judicial functions at the present time greater numbers than are now engaged upon war activities here, additional appointments would have to be made, and it has not seemed that the services being performed by the committees presided over by -the gentlemen who now preside over them are not in fact satisfactory.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Mr. Speaker, the
fifth representation made by this Civil Liberties' Association was that on hearings before advisory committees the Department of Justice should be represented by counsel of high standing. This was given careful consideration, and in view of the fact that many of the persons who are detained are not able to have counsel representing them it is not considered desirable that counsel should represent the crown. Further it is considered that such procedure would probably cause undue delay. A large number of these cases have still to be considered, and we are trying to expedite them as much as possible.
The sixth representation was that fuller disclosure of the facts with regard to cases of detention should be made to parliament in greater detail than at present. The provisions of the third subsection of regulation 21 requiring information to be furnished to parliament are similar to those in force in the United Kingdom, and they require that the Minister of Justice shall at the beginning of each session of parliament, and every four weeks thereafter during each session, make reports to parliament showing the action taken under those regulations, which reports shall show the number of persons detained under orders made pursuant to the regulation, and the number of cases, if any, in which the Minister of Justice declined to follow the advice of any advisory committee which may be appointed under regulation 22. These reports are being filed in due course. If, as a result of the investigation of this special committee, it is thought desirable that fuller information should be supplied to parliament, and if the committee, after considering all

Defence of Canada Regulations
the factors involved, considers it to be in the public interest that these reports should disclose more about the individual cases, the recommendations of the committee will be given careful consideration, not only by me but by council. I have no doubt that the desires of parliament in that regard will be promptly and fully met.
There was a further representation that regulations 39 and 39A be amended so that prohibited statements be defined as statements amounting to a systematic publication of matter calculated to foment opposition to the successful prosecution of the war. Regulations 39 and 39A were considered and revised in accordance with the recommendations of the special committee of 1940-41; and it is not considered that, pending the report of the new committee, the present is an opportune time to relax these regulations.
The third suspicion mentioned by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), as being one of those which to a certain extent might undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of the regulations, was that some nazi adherents, two of whom were mentioned in the course of the debate this afternoon, have not yet been interfered with. This is a matter that is well worth careful consideration and I wish to assure the house that we are seriously concerned over what should be done to prevent any damage to the war effort upon which we are engaged. If after examination it is found that there are at large in this country people whose activities are thought to be detrimental to the prosecution of the war effort, proper measures will be adopted in that regard.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) discussed some of the statements made in a return to the house concerning one James Franceschini. I must confess that I have not had an opportunity of examining a large part of the material to which reference was made by the hon. member, because the administration of the affairs of this interned person was under the control of the custodian. The manner in which this interned person's affairs were administered can be the object of inquiry. Possibly that matter does not fall within the purview of the jurisdiction given to this special committee- although I am not suggesting that if it sees fit the special committee should not inquire into the matter-but the inquiry would have to be directed to officers of the custodian's branch rather than to officers of the Department of Justice.
As to the release of Mr. Franceschini I was informed some time ago by counsel acting for

him that it was proposed to make an inquiry from me as to how that had come about. At that time I had prepared a draft answer which, I believe, might be made to that inquiry. Perhaps I might communicate to the house what had been determined at that time. This draft, which is under date of April 15, states:
With reference to your inquiry respecting James Franceschini I may say that the information in the possession of the police warranted, in my view, the original detention of Franceschini. Subsequently however and after fuller information had been obtained the late Minister of Justice ordered his unconditional release on the ground that it was not considered that he would be likely to be a danger to the state, owing to the serious state of his health.
From the information presently available and the circumstances existing to-day I think that if this case were now being reviewed by an advisory committee it would be reasonable to believe that such committee would be apt to recommend release. Such a recommendation would be consistent with other recommendations in cases in which the evidence is somewhat similar.
I did go through the file pretty carefully, and we prepared this statement. I may say that the information in possession of the police in my view warranted the orginal detention of Franceschini. I also came to the conclusion that if he had not been unconditionally released when he was, and if his case were now *being reviewed by an advisory committee, it is my belief that that committee would recommend release. That would appear to be consistent with what has been done in other cases where the evidence is somewhat similar.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Did a committee not recommend his release?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There had been an original inquiry by one of the former committees, consisting of one person; and a report had been made. The then minister of justice, on that report and the information before him, had decided to order a continuation of detention. That, I think, is as far as it is proper for me to go. There must be someone to assume the responsibility in the house for detention orders, and the continuation of detention where it has been continued; and it is my submission that it is in the interest of the public that that responsibility should rest upon someone who is answerable to this house.
As I said this afternoon it has been my good fortune to be able to accept eveiy recommendation that has been put before me; but I felt in each instance that I was taking a responsibility for which I was answerable to the house, and that that was the way in which these regulations should be administered.

Defence of Canada Regulations
There is no suggestion that in the detention of an individual there is punishment. It is merely prevention. It is only in such cases [DOT]where the person responsible can come before the house and say that in his opinion it [DOT]would be dangerous for the safety of the state in this crisis to have the person concerned at large.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no such thing as clemency then?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	There is no such
thing as clemency; there cannot be any such thing as clemency. In the case of Franceschini, if the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has that in mind, I think the expression used at the time he was released that it was on compassionate grounds is an unfortunate expression, and one that was not in accord with the real finding. The real finding was that because of the condition of the man's health at that time it was not felt that his being at large would endanger the safety of the state.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the minister would allow me I should like to say that there is a distinction between clemency and compassion. Compassionate grounds might apply to the state of a man's health. We need to be charitable about these matters, and judicial too.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The' information,
which I think has been most carefully controlled, is that this man's health was such that without surgical intervention his life was a matter of days. That being the condition of his health, it was considered at that time that releasing him would not in any way endanger the safety of the state. No grounds have developed since which in my opinion would justify reinternment. Had release not been made at that time and (had the case come before the advisory 'board, I feel that the advisory board would have been apt to recommend release. Had I been the one to receive such a recommendation, I would have approved it at once and ordered release.
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) referred to a case where a man had been detained for some considerable time because the reporter had been engaged upon other business and his notes had not been submitted to the advisory committee. I agree witlh the hon. member in voicing strong condemnation of anything of that kind, and I wish to assure him that in so far as I can exercise supervision over these matters, such things will not occur. We do appreciate that there are probably still some internees who will be released when their cases are con-
44561- 133
sidered by the advisory committees. It is both in the public interest and in justice to such internees that their cases be reached and dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) adverted to the fact that under the regulations Jehovah's Witnesses are declared to be an illegal organization. I must confess that I have not had an opportunity of examining the facts relative to these declarations of illegality contained in regulation 39C, but I trust the house will agree with me when I say that so long as the regulation remains the law of the country, it is the duty of the Minister of Justice to see that it is applied. If there are any features of the regulations which should be varied, until such time as they are varied the Minister of Justice cannot take it upon himself to refrain from applying them in the .terms in which they have been set out. These matters can be examined and reviewed and recommendations made by this special committee, and the recommendations of the special committee will most certainly receive the careful consideration of his excellency in council. But until such time as the regulations are modified, I feel that it is my duty to apply them as fairly and as completely as the terms require.
There was a suggestion from the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) that, by reason of his being a layman, he felt that he should not interfere in any way with the application of the regulations. I beg to assure the hon. member that we are only too pleased at all times to receive information upon which we can rely for the purpose of dealing with these cases. Any representation that the hon. member for Davenport or the member for any other constituency may see fit to submit at any time will receive careful consideration. We shall be grateful for information coming from sources upon which we can rely.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I extend the same invitation to the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot). Any suggestions he may make will receive the most careful consideration.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) noted that this resolution does not, as did the resolution last year, provide for the examination by the committee of matters relating to naturalization and deportation. It will be noticed that the resolution setting up the special committee last year was introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and he probably felt no qualms in asking for the investigation of matters which might concern more than one department.



Defence of Canada Regulations
This year I am asking the house to appoint a special committee to investigate matters relating to the Department of Justice. Naturalization and deportation may to a certain extent be connected with and dealt with by the regulations, and I suggest that if these matters are to be examined and a report submitted, the report will receive the consideration of my hon. friend who presides over the department within which these matters come.


Howard Charles Green: The Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) is in his place at the moment, and the matter of naturalization comes under his department. I feel quite confident that he would have no objection to having this resolution amended to include naturalization and deportation. After all, the committee is not to investigate the Department of Justice; it is to investigate these particular subjects, and I urge upon the minister that he agree to having the motion amended to cover these two matters. They have already been considered to a certain extent by a committee, the personnel of which was almost identical with that of the committee which is to function this year.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I certainly would have no objection to the committee examining any subjects. Although my experience here is quite limited, may I suggest that possibly the committee itself might ask for further powers to deal with these subjects if it feels that it is convenient to deal with them in connection with the other matters. If such a suggestion comes from the committee, I can assure the hon. member that I would be the last to raise any objection.
Several interesting suggestions were made by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), of which I took careful note and which, no doubt, will receive the consideration of the committee. For instance, the hon. member suggested that the terms of regulation 21 were too sweeping, that there should be greater particularity. I understand that this matter received the attention of the committee which sat in 1940 and in 1941, and I have no doubt that it will be one of the main topics for consideration of the committee which is to sit this year. The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) dealt with some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Trinity. I submit that the composition of the committee is such that we who are not members may feel assured that these matters will receive the consideration they deserve in the interests of the public.
The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) also put forward the suggestion that the committee should review with care the whole question of the banning of organi-

zations" and publications as well as the internment of persons. I take it that the hon. member did not mean that it should be the duty of the committee to examine the case of each one of those who are interned. That would certainly be a very great convenience for the Department of Justice, but it would be an undertaking which I am afraid the time of the committee would not allow it to perform.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would suggest that it would not be within the purview of the reference to the committee.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The reference is broad, and we did consider whether there should be the insertion of any other words in the resolution, but certainly not for the purpose of recommending an order with respect to any individuals. The first part of the hon. member's suggestion would, however, come well within the purview of the reference because these organizations and these publications are specifically set out in the regulations; and, having jurisdiction to review the regulations, the committee would have jurisdiction to review the main portion of the hon. member's suggestion. But I did not understand that the hon. member meant that the committee should make a special recommendation in respect of each of the individuals interned but that rather it was a matter of general policy that was going to be reviewed.
I share with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) his regrets that he is not to be a member of the committee this year, because I have read the reports and I do appreciate that his presence on the committee in past years has been of very great assistance; but I hope that even if he is not a member of the committee, he will find opportunity to come before it and to give those who may be sitting upon it the benefit of such suggestions as he may feel are proper.
There remains the invitation of the hon. leader of the opposition that the Minister of Justice tell the house what is his attitude and what is the attitude of the government toward the communist party. The policy of the government has not yet been determined, and I do not think it would be proper for the government or for one of its members, when it has proposed the appointment of a special committee to investigate the matter, to publish in advance of the findings of the committee what its policy was going to be. The government will no doubt want to give veiy careful consideration to the recommendations which the committee will see fit to make.

War Appropriation
As to the attitude of the Minister of Justice, I cannot go further than to say that his attitude is to apply the regulations as they exist and as they will exist from time to time. My duty, I take it, is to apply these regulations and not to remake them. If they are to be remade, they will be remade by his excellency in council, after the best consideration in the power of all the members of the government has been given to the recommendations which we hope to receive from the committee. When the policy has been determined I think I may have the privilege of stating it to the house on an occasion when that policy will be debatable. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that I am closing this debate and that when I sit down you will put the question. I do not think it would be proper for me therefore to attempt to make any statement now that would not be open to discussion by the house, but when the policy has been formulated I hope to have the opportunity, as I said, of announcing it to the house on an occasion when it will be the subject of debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REfD (New Westminster): I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether it is true that a paper is being published in Vancouver under the name of The New Canadian, and published in Japanese and in English, and whether any steps are being taken to check up on it?
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: Will my hon. friend allow me to
treat his question as a notice? I have not the information available at the moment, but I shall be glad to obtain it and give an answer very soon.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 1, consideration in committee of a resolution to provide sums not exceeding $2,000,000,000 for the year ending March 31, 1943, for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Vien in the chair.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Yesterday I was in the
station at London, Ontario, when a soldier came in who had received a wire from his home in Halifax that his mother or father-
I forget which-had died. He purchased a ticket from London to Halifax, and I observed he had to pay for it $36.60, as I remember. I asked the young man, "Do you have to pay your own way back to Halifax?" He said, "Yes, I do " In circumstances like that where a Halifax soldier is sent to train far away from home, as far as London in the province of Ontario, surely to goodness there must be some regulation whereby he would not have to pay $36.60 out of the small monthly sum a private receives to return home to Halifax on the decease of one of his parents. Is there no regulation covering such a case?


James Layton Ralston: He would pay one-way
fare for the return ticket.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know he paid $36.60.
I do not know whether that was return fare or not.


James Layton Ralston: When they are on leave, they pay one-way fare. There is also a special regulation which provides for payment of one-third of the one-way fare.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But there were special circumstances in this case. He was training so far away from home. He might just as well have been training in Nova Scotia as coming all the way to Ontario to be trained. But that appears to be the system all across Canada. Surely under those special circumstances, where the soldier had to return home because of the death of one of his parents, there should be some assistance granted to help him get back home, a free trip or some minimum fare so that he would not have to pay such a large amount as $36.60.


James Layton Ralston: The big fare to which my hon. friend refers was on account of the distance. The regulation is that all soldiers on leave get at least one-way fare; that is, they do not have to pay their return fare.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: I should like to read a letter appearing in the Guelph Daily Mercury of Thursday, April 30, 1942. This letter is from a definite identified unit in England, but the soldiers' names are not given. The letter reads:
Editor Guelph Daily Mercury,
Sir:
We. the men of the 16-43rd Battery of Guelph, have been reading in an issue of the Mercury, which we were glad to receive, a little late, but better late than never, that the present soldiers of 40-day fame, are being dressed up like Little Lord Fauntleroys, in a dress uniform, somewhat like that worn by our officers, while we poor chaps find it hard to even get a second pair of issue pants to our battle-dress.
War Appropriation

We would like to find out why there is such a scarcity of pants for us while the recruits are able to be dressed in such a manner. We would like very much the cooperation of the Guelph Daily Mercury by publishing this letter and letting the people know how we are being dressed as compared with the soldiers back home.
So if you would be so kind as to find out why we can't get any more clothes from home, we certainly will be very much obliged to you and your paper for the kind assistance in this matter. So let us know at your earliest possible convenience. Our return address is:
The Boys of "C" Troop 16th Battery 12th Field Regt.,
England, March 25,
R.C.A. Canadian Army Overseas.
I should be glad if the minister is now in a position to give an answer.


James Layton Ralston: This is the first complaint I have ever heard of or received with regard to dress or clothing in England. Within the last two weeks I received word from General MoNaughton with particular regard to the quality of the battle-dress issued over there, which is Canadian made; two suits of battle-dress are allowed. I do not understand what the young men say about the difficulty of getting a second pair of trousers. I am quite satisfied that-I was going to say, something has slipped down-


Mr. REID:: Give them kilts.


James Layton Ralston: I am sure that this must be the odd case. I shall certainly look into it and shall even ask England about C Troop, 16th Battery, R.C.A.


Mr. MacINNIS:: During the rather long time that the Department of National Defence has been under review, I do not believe I have said anything. Most of the matters I would have raised and the questions I would have asked were raised or asked by someone else, and I was satisfied with the minister's replies.
However, just before the house adjourned on Friday last the hon. member for Vancouver South raised two points in this discussion which went beyond a mere asking for information and dealt with questions of military policy. When the minister suggested that the hon. member seemed to think only of one of Canada's coasts as being in danger, the hon. member remarked that he represented a Vancouver or a coast constituency and felt that, because of that, he should be more concerned with the west coast. I also represent a west coast constituency, but I would not wish to have it supposed that, because I have not stressed defence matters,

I am not concerned with the defence of either coast or with Canada's whole war effort. I do not want the hon. member for Vancouver South to feel that I am criticizing him if I disagree with him. I realize that he has far more experience with military affairs than I have. But he raised a question of general policy. What he said was this, as reported in Hansard, page 2066.
It seems to me the committee would be well advised at this stage to try to get a broad picture of Canadian army activities both abroad and at home.
While I may not know very much about the details of military operations, I think I have about as much grasp as the average person of what the broad principles are, and I must admit that what the hon. member for Vancouver South said on Friday disturbed me greatly.
First he mentioned that we must avenge Hong Kong. I think that is a bad approach .to Canada's war effort. Then he said that we must build up an army of the Pacific which would be able to fight on its own, fight by itself. It seems to me that that does not fit into the strategy of this war, because there is nothing clearer than that Canada cannot fight on her own.


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege, I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver East would not misrepresent me intentionally. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. What I meant was that there should be a complete army-not that it should fight by itself, but that it should be an army rather than a group of detachments to defend the coast.


Angus MacInnis: I mentioned when I began [DOT]that I hoped the hon. member for Vancouver South would not interpret my remarks as a criticism in the sense in which criticism in this chamber is generally regarded. But the words which I quoted are definitely the words he used; he mentioned an army which would be able to fight on its own, fight by itself.
I think I have previously pointed out the enormous amount of equipment which would be required if Canada were to lead an offensive war on the Pacific, and what I said at that time holds good to-day. No matter what impression may be made locally by what an hon. member may say, we should keep the general situation clearly in mind. We should make it clear-and I think it needs to be made clear in Canada, because of the feeling in some parts of the country-that we are engaged in a world war, a war in which practically the whole world is fighting the axis powers. That fact is as important in its application to one of Canada's coasts as it is to the other.

War Appropriation
We can no more make a war all on our own or put a force of our own in the eastern theatre of war .than we can on the west. We must fight this war in conjunction with our allies or not fight at all. That demands, in my opinion, a unified strategy and a united command.
If it does not mean that, then our Pacific war council does not mean anything. I think it would create a wrong impression in the minds of our people if we were to suggest that we could put an army of our own in the field against the Japanese.
As I have said, I have taken very little part in this discussion, not because I did not have some idea of what our west coast defences are, but because I felt it would not be very helpful to expose the weaknesses of our west coast defences by giving publicity to it in this house. Again, I realize that the government is faced with a great shortage of war material. It has been said in this discussion time and again that our men in training do not have a sufficient number of rifles and other necessary equipment. Criticism of that kind is really the easiest thing in the world to engage in, but I never felt inclined to indulge in it because I realize that the government is faced with a shortage of material and that if existing material is to be allocated to the best advantage it should go to the fighting units rather than to units in training. I know very little about these matters, but it seems to me that while you may be able to train a man without first-class equipment, you certainly cannot put him into the field and expect him to fight without such equipment. I have felt that the government had no other choice than to use the equipment available where it could be employed to best advantage.
After the hon. member for Vancouver South had finished, the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) spoke on the necessity or the desirability of Canada keeping her men at home. He said that the place to defend Canada is in Canada. I take it that most members agree that Canada is being defended to-day, but she is not being defended on the shores of the St. Lawrence or on the east or the west coast. Every Russian soldier who died on the battle-fields of Russia during last winter died, in my opinion, in the defence of Canada. Possibly he did not know that he was dying in the defence of Canada; nevertheless the circumstances are such that he did die in the defence of Canada. Either that or we are assuming that Hitler and his nazis are no threat to the north American continent or to Canada's place therein. Canada is being defended to-day in the mud and heat of Burma, in the North sea, on the Atlantic and on the Pacific. If Canada is not being defended in
those places, if the enemy is not defeated in those places, in those far-away places, then it seems to me it will be very difficult, indeed it is highly improbable, that we shall be able to defeat the nazis when they land on Canada's shores. This is something that our isolationists should be told. Isolationism died, so far as the north American continent is concerned, even for the most dyed-in-the-wool isolationists, at Pearl Harbour. Evidently the significance of that fact has not reached some people in Canada even to this day.
In all kindness I suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver South that we are not going to create great enthusiasm for the war in Canada by saying that Hong Kong must be avenged. Hong Kong was a terrible disaster; it may have been more than that. But Hong Kong was only one of a great many incidents in this war; and when I say this war, I am assuming that this war started before September 1939. Nanking was another incident more horrible than Hong Kong. Yet it did not disturb us, and it is because these things did not disturb us that we are not going to raise a great deal of enthusiasm in the young men in our armed forces with the idea of revenge. I remember reading a statement by Wellington Koo made to the assembly of the League of Nations in 1937. He was pleading China's case before the league, asking for the assistance of the nations who were then members of the league. He said that in a very short time the sky would be black with chickens coming home to roost. Well, Hong Kong was just one of the brood coming home to roost.
To me, the issue in this war is not revenge. There are two issues that we must keep always and continuously before us. The first is to destroy completely and forever the conception that might is right, that force is the ultimate arbiter in international affairs. That is the nazi conception of international affairs, and that is why the nations of the world reluctantly had to take up the fight with nazi Germany. The second issue in the war is to bring the rule of law into the world, to maintain for everyone social, political and economic security and freedom. If we do not keep these things in mind; if we do not by deed as well as by word show that we are fighting for these things, we shall not get very far with appeals to hate or to revenge.
The other matter to which the hon. member for Vancouver South referred on Friday, compulsory military service for overseas: I am not sure that this is the proper time to discuss it. The question will have to be discussed, but I think it should be discussed at some other time rather than in connection with this resolu-
War Appropriation

tion. While I agree with the hon. member that it is desirable that that question should be decided, particularly as far as the western hemisphere is concerned, nevertheless I believe that the greatest question facing this country is still the question of production, and that until our production reaches the point where we can supply not only all our fighting forces but also the men in training, the question of compulsory service is not of such great importance.


Mr. POTTIER:: I wish to make a few remarks in connection with a statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver South on Friday last, as reported on page 2068 of Hansard. His statement reads as follows:
If the members from the minister's own province have not gumption enough to get up and urge that steps be taken to improve the defence of the Atlantic coast, I do not think it helps very much to accuse somebody else who speaks of the needs of the Pacific coast of being unfair to Canada. The onus is just the other way. I say, give the Atlantic coast everything they need, and I have pleaded for that, not as strongly perhaps as I might have for the needs of the Pacific coast because I do not know all the facts. I do not appreciate the minister or any member getting up here and making accusations against me in that way.
I am suggesting to the hon. member that that statement, particularly in conjunction with the use of the word "gumption", is objectionable, and quite frankly that is the reason why I am on my feet at this time. His statement is unfair, and I urge upon the hon. member in fairness to the members from the maritimes that he withdraw that statement. I do not think any hon. member from the maritimes would use a term like that about any other hon. member or a group of members from the Pacific coast.


Mr. HOMUTH:: What would they say?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: They would say, "Treat the two coasts in the same manner." That is all we on the Atlantic coast have ever asked for. We on the Atlantic coast have not asked for anything that is not coming to us, and such expressions as that used by the hon. member for Vancouver South are unfortunate and give a wrong impression. At the present time we are more in the war zone than the Pacific coast. We have submarines off our shores; we have sinkings in sight of land-


An hon. MEMBER:: East is East and West is West.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member feels' badly about that word, I am only too glad to withdraw it.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Thank you.


Howard Charles Green: It would be unfortunate if there should develop a contest between hon. members from the far east and those from the far west with regard to what defences they get. As a matter of fact both of us have a hard enough time getting proper defences. I was, however, attacked the other day for supposedly thinking only of the western coast. I thought it was a most unfair statement to have made against me; it was on that account that I made the explanation I did. But I have no wish at all to hurt the feelings of any hon. members from Nova Scotia.


James Layton Ralston: All I want to say is, I think my hon. friend can search what I have said from end to end and he will find no attack of any kind on him. What I said was that I was glad to recognize that there are two coasts and that sometimes I thought he had not given the same attention to that fact that he might have given.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think that is a very complimentary statement.


James Layton Ralston: There was no suggestion of an attack. I read Hansard afterwards, and I think neither he nor any other hon. member will find any suggestion of the kind.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I have refrained from making any speeches in this debate because I am sure the minister does not need them. I will, however, make one suggestion to him in order to facilitate peace. I suggest that he have a condensed report of some of the strategic points brought forward by some of the armchair generals sent to Hitler and the latter will at once call the war off. It will be noticed that there has been a remarkable reluctance on the part of some hon. ex-soldier members to speak during this discussion. I am sorry that hon. members from the maritimes take offence at the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South; if he had had the pleasure I had the other night of partaking of a delightful lobster supper with hon. members from the maritimes, he would have made no such suggestion.
As to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), I am not congratulating the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson); I leave that to the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot); but the hon. member for Peel said something the other day that as a returned man I should like to endorse and that, in my opinion, 99 per cent of the private members endorse, namely, that neither the minister nor any other member of the government has yet offered a reasonable

War Appropriation
explanation for not granting the cost of living bonus in some form to soldiers' dependents. I can give the minister one suggestion as to where he could find the money to do that; if we abolished that museum of political inactivity known as the other place, it would pay quite a bit of the cost.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But look at all those people who want to go there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, I am not a lawyer.
There is another thing which I should like to endorse and which if we as returned men did not endorse we would be derelict in our duty. No member of the government has given any reasonable excuse why at least for embarkation leave we cannot give free passage to every soldier in Canada.
I am not going to try to tell the minister how to defend the Pacific coast or the Atlantic, because I am not a military strategist. I have seen a collection of most gallant gentlemen round here for many days, who should be getting on with the war, instead of listening to speeches. A second reason is that I do not yet know what the coast defences are, and I do not think any private member here does.
Perhaps for the first time, but I hope not for the last time, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver East upon an excellent speech to-night. Generally I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South more than with the hon. member for Vancouver East, because there is a little southeast Vancouver war in our country. I do not think any private member can tell what the strategy should be for defending the Pacific coast, but I should like to ask the minister a couple of questions in that connection. I am not satisfied with the stand his staff has taken, as I understand it. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong; but, as I understand, his staff are perfectly satisfied that we have proper provision, in the event of attack on the Pacific coast, for taking reinforcements to the coast, either man-power or munitions, or the possible necessity of evacuation from Pacific coast cities. I am sure the minister has not been correctly advised through his staff; I presume the staff are aware-if not, they should be; there are enough of them-that we have no alternative highway or railway to, get supplies in to the coast or people out from the Pacific coast in the event of attack. I am sure the minister has not been advised by his staff that the partial evacuation from Hastings park is now stretched along the trans-Canada
highway in boxcars where bombs could be dropped by the most amateur Japanese saboteurs, putting either of the railways out of action.


Humphrey Mitchell: How can they get the bombs?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not think you want me to point out the dates that powder was issued to Japanese in British Columbia, since Pearl Harbour, and neither you nor I know where that powder went. I will not say that this applies to the Canadian Pacific railway, but I do know that at one point immediately adjacent to the tracks of the Canadian National Railways in the Fraser valley there are two bridges, one for the Canadian Pacific and the other for the Canadian National. They crisscross the river at the identical spot. Any member from British Columbia knows where that point is, but I am sorry that some of the government and the staff do not know where it is. The trans-Canada highway also passes through there. One box of powder would put those three arteries out of action, and that is the only way there is to get in supplies from our arsenals in Quebec and Ontario and the interior of British Columbia. There would be no way to evacuate the people from the lower mainland of British Columbia, and no way to protect the air fields.
I am sorry that the minister did not know this. I do not claim to be a military strategist; but every person about ten years of age in British Columbia knows it. I do not wish to say what the Pacific defences are; I do not know. But I have a certain amount of common sense; and I know when you have Japanese, the most dastardly enemies we have, including Hitler, right alongside railway tracks, you have a dangerous condition. Our governor general went past there a short time ago, and the Japanese could have thrown a bomb from their car right into his private car, by reaching from one car to the other. Under such conditions we do not have a satisfactory defence on the Pacific coast, so far as the Japanese are concerned.
I should like to know what steps the Department of National Defence are taking to provide both an outlet from and an inlet to the Pacific coast from our arsenals-because the minister knows only too well where they are in British Columbia and elsewhere. I do not wish to be criticizing all the time-although I may have something to say to-morrow in connection with a criticism along another line. But I do say there has been too much time wasted. As one hon. member said the other day, probably he was wasting time; probably
War Appropriation

I am wasting time to-night. But I certainly must tell the minister something his staff does not know. I must point out where our trans-Canada highway and our railways can be put out of action by one box of powder by the most dastardly enemy we have to-day, and no alternate route is being provided.
I am very much interested in the free transportation of soldiers. I am interested in this fact, as a supporter of the government, that in so far as I see the matter they have not as yet made any attempt to explain why we can pay a cost of living bonus to some of the higher paid civil servants, and cannot pay it to a mother with four children whose husband is at war. That has never yet been justified by the government, so far as I am aware."
There is another point I should like to make, as an old soldier-probably not a very good one, but nevertheless a soldier. I think I do know something about this, because I know the necessity for discipline. I would strongly urge upon the minister, not so much in his branch of national defence, but in another branch whose expenditures will come before us in a few days, that it is not conducive to discipline to have a bunch of fine young men continuously compelled by the law, as laid down in the King's Rules Regulations and Orders to salute a bunch of senior officers who have never been out of Canada, who never will go out of Canada, who are still pushing pens and always will be pushing pens. If the soldiers in this day and age knew how to adjust it as we did in the last war, they wmuld adjust it in exactly the same way as we privates and non-commissioned officers did. We just ignored them, and would not salute them at all. I want to tell the minister and his staff that no good frontline officer, such as I served with, wants to be saluted. He is not parading around Ottawa at some cease-fire job.
But I am not interested in that point as much as in the other one. I am more interested in coast defence, in a fact which cannot be contradicted by anyone, namely that to-day it is possible for the Japanese to put both trans-Canada railways and the trans-Canada highway out of action with one handful of powder. Apparently no effort is being made by the staff to cover that; and apparently no effort is being made to provide an alternative route either into or out of the Pacific coast, in the event of attack, when that route could be provided for a very small sum of money.


James Layton Ralston: First with regard to
dependents' allowances and transportation, I think we had a lengthy discussion of these matters, and I have noted all that has 
been said. I would say again, however, in connection with dependents' allowances that whether or not my hon. friend and the committee are satisfied with it, my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in November announced a policy which was intended to cover that very situation. There was provision for a board of trustees whereby emergent, special cases and cases of need of any kind would be looked after. He announced, I believe, that it was far better, instead of making uniform uppings of all allowances, to provide for cases where need arose.
I have not before me to-night figures as to dependents' allowances paid in other places. But I do assure my hon. friend and the committee that our allowances are substantially above any others. I am not saying that they should not be higher still, but I do think that the matter has not been overlooked at all, in respect of the possible necessity for increases, on account of increased cost of living. I have, however, taken the matter under consideration and, as I promised the committee the other day, every attention will be given to it.
With respect to the other point mentioned by my hon. friend, I know the Department of National Defence covers a great many activities. But I do say to my hon. friend that the Department of National Defence does not cover, and does not take on as its responsibility, the evacuation of Japanese from British Columbia, or the guarding of the roads. That is simply impossible. The Department of National Defence is endeavouring to conduct and to prepare for military operations, and to defend against enemy armed forces. What my hon. friend is referring to is civil defence in Canada. Of course I will take note immediately of what he has said because, indirectly, it does affect defence. My hon. friend will understand that we have across Canada in many, many places points which are vulnerable, as has already been indicated. But they are not guarded, and cannot be successfully guarded by soldiers. It would not be a proper thing to do to use up our armed forces for that purpose. Those are police jobs, which are under civilian authorities, and should be controlled by them.
If my hon. friend had read an article some time ago written by ,1. Edgar Hoover of the federal bureau of investigation in the United States, he would have seen described the best delimitation one possibly could find of the duties of military and civilian authorities in connection with this matter of sabotage, and enemy action of that kind. It was there indicated that the federal bureau of investigation-not the secretary of state for war- undertook those tasks. They were undertaken

War Appropriation
not as a federal responsibility, but for the purpose of assisting those who owned plants, or civil authorities who had to do with roads, highways, bridges and things of that kind in order to see that they were guarded.
It is obvious that those places cannot be guarded by having a man walking up and down with a rifle, with bayonet attached, slung over his shoulder. Saboteurs do not come out in the open in that way. If you guarded a bridge in that way you would be more likely to find the saboteur under it than at the entrance to the bridge. All these are police jobs, and I mention it only to indicate to my hon. friend why, from a practical point of view, it is not the job of the Department of National Defence, or of a war department, to look after those matters. It is a civilian job.
Having said that, I wish to say secondly that I am not responsible, and I will admit no responsibility, nor is my staff responsible for the evacuation of the Japanese from British Columbia. There again I am vitally interested, because my hon. friend is quite right that I want to see to it that avenues to and from British Columbia are kept open in order that reinforcements and munitions may be moved in there, and in the most rapid manner. Our plans are with regard to the distribution of troops so that that can be done. I can only say to my hon. friend that I know nothing about the exact local conditions to which he refers, but I shall certainly bring the matter to the attention of my colleagues who have that problem in hand. If there is any necessity for guards or any necessity to move these Japanese from the place in which they are, I shall do my very best toward seeing that it is done. Let me say to him that, as I understand it, these Japanese are in the process of being moved from British Columbia. I understand that the reason why they are in these boxcars at the present time is because accommodation is not ready for them at the place to which they are to go. They are not going to stay there forever by any means. Just as quickly as accommodation is ready, they will be moved.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think words have been imputed to me that I did not say. I do not blame the Minister of National Defence for this; but I do suggest, to use his own words, that any inlet into the province of British Columbia or the Pacific coast is a matter of national defence. I am not suggesting for one minute that the Department of National Defence should police these bridges or roads-


James Layton Ralston: Or cars.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Or cars. What I am saying is that the Department of National Defence should not permit boxcar after boxcai loaded with Japanese to be left along the main inlet, in fact the only inlet to the Pacific coast defences. I am not saying that the Department of National Defence should do police duty, but I think that department should see that the civilian department responsible should move them oil the main highway.


James Layton Ralston: I want to say to my hon friend in justice to my staff that I thought he was quite unfair when he suggested that the staff of the Department of National Defence were letting us down in that respect. The staff of the Department of National Defence are as vigilant as they can be in connection with the work they have to do, and many jobs have been placed on their shoulders from time to time. When a matter of this kind is brought to my attention, I shall see that it is brought to the attention of the proper minister.


Mr. WHITE:: There are two or three matters I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and perhaps I can mention them all at once. The first point is in connection with reinforcements for the army overseas. In bringing up this matter I realize fully that the minister may be rather reluctant to make a statement or to give information on this subject; but at the same time he is no doubt aware, as are all hon. members, that during the past few months several hundred or perhaps several thousand officers, non-commissioned officers and men have returned to Canada from England. I think I am safe in saying that probably all hon. members must have heard the various reports-perhaps they are only rumours-as to the number of available reinforcements with the units and the holding companies in England. Various articles by different people have appeared in the press, and I would refer the minister to the Ottawa Citizen of Tuesday, April 28, which contains an article on this matter. I shall quote briefly from it, as follows:
In a series of editorial articles, the Globe and Mail has suggested that many units of the Canadian corps overseas are lacking a proper supply of trained reinforcements. The same opinion was voiced by a man who was a distinguished staff officer in the last war in a recent issue of the Ottawa Journal.
And again:
Captain David Croll, former mayor of Windsor, and a minister in the Ontario cabinet, has publicly declared on the floor of the Ontario legislature that the Canadian army needs reinforcements, and needs them badly.
And again:
Colonel Ilalston, the Minister of National Defence, met these criticisms with a blanket

War Appropriation

denial, and said that all the reinforcements requested by the corps commander had been supplied.
In the blue book of April, 1942, at page 14, it is stated that there are approximately
300.000	men in the active army, approximately half of whom are outside the country. If that statement is correct-and I believe it is- there would be in Canada somewhere around
150.000	men who have enlisted in the active forces and who are available to be sent overseas. Within the last two months I believe that a request has been made for a, large number of reinforcements to proceed overseas. Could the minister tell the committee if the department was able to fill the quota, because I understand that the number asked for was not sent? I believe that in order to send as many as possible, training centres, district headquarters and other headquarters were cleaned out of men who were stenographers, clerks, storemen or men holding positions of that kind, who, because of their enlistment in the active force, had to proceed on draft.
I realize it is difficult to ask the minister to give actual numbers, but I think the committee should have some information as to whether or not there are sufficient trained active force men in Canada to make up any quota that might be required for overseas service. Perhaps the minister would also tell the committee if in his opinion and in the opinion of his staff officers there are to-day in England, either with the units or with the holding companies, sufficient reinforcements to guard against any emergency that might arise.
The minister has stated the new recruit requirements necessary for the present year for both active and reserve armies. In regard to the men required for the active army in the present year would the minister tell the committee the method by which the quota is established for each district. I understand that in the past the quota has been based upon the population of the district or upon the strength of the reserve army in the military district or upon the basis of voluntary enlistments in the past. Perhaps the minister can tell the committee later on just what he has in mind in setting the quota for each military district for men for the active force.
In regard to the number of men needed for the reserve army, which I understand will be some 50,000, and who are called out under the National Resources Mobilization Act, would the minister tell the committee what he proposes to do after the men in the age limit up to thirty years are exhausted? Is it the intention to extend the age limit to thirty-five years, or is it the intention to call married men up to thirty years who have no children?

In regard to men called up for the reserve forces, I wonder whether this matter has been brought to the attention of the minister. After these men finish their training at the advanced training centres and are allotted to units, in many instances they are not allotted to units from the province in which *they resided prior to enlistment.


James Layton Ralston: Is that overseas?


George Stanley White: No, I am referring to the men in the reserve army. For instance, I understand there is a regiment in northern Ontario which has attached to it some 300 men from another province. I realize that it is sometimes difficult to attach men to units from their own province; but with Canada stretching over several thousand miles of territory and the present strain upon our transportation facilities, I submit that if troops were attached to units in their own province, not only would the transportation situation be improved but a great deal of the agitation and deputations and representations made to the minister for free transportation or further reduced fares would be done away with.
I should also like to bring to the minister's attention the case of boys who are to-day under seventeen and eighteen years of age. I understand that they cannot enlist in the active forces, and that under the restricted employment order the selective service officer cannot give these boys a permit to work in restricted trades. This works a distinct hardship upon boys who are unfortunate enough to be around seventeen and eighteen. If they cannot be accepted into the active army I think it is only fair that they should be given every opportunity to do war work or anything else. I do not want to suggest to the minister that the present regulations are a method of forcing them into the army-


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is speaking of boys of seventeen and eighteen?


George Stanley White: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Was my hon. friend right when he said that the selective service officer cannot give a permit to boys of seventeen to work in restricted trades?


George Stanley White: That is what I understand.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Boys seventeen and over.


George Stanley White: Yes, and I understood the minister to say that a lad could not join the army until he was eighteen and a half years of age.


James Layton Ralston: He can enlist at eighteen for trade training.

War Appropriation


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But not in the fighting forces.


James Layton Ralston: He cannot be sent overseas until he is nineteen.


George Stanley White: A boy would need certain educational qualifications to go into a trade.


James Layton Ralston: He would not require any educational advantages which the ordinary boy of sixteen or seventeen would not normally have, just the ordinary school education.


George Stanley White: I hope the minister will consider that point because I feel that the regulations work a decided hardship on these young boys.
Some days ago when the minister was speaking about the reserve force units he promised to give a break-down of the number of men in the reserve, which he put at somewhere around 70,000. I asked for a break-down of these men into machine gun, rifle, artillery and other units. The break-down has not yet been given; but in the blue book of April of this year the number in the reserve forces is given at roughly 140,000 men. I have also a return brought down by the Minister of National Defence dated April 20, which I shall have to use because the break-down has not been given, which sets out the expenditure on the reserve forces for 1940-41 and 1941-42. It shows pay and allowances for the reserve army in 1940-41 at roughly $4,200,000, and for 1941-42, at $2,400,000, or just about one-half the amount spent in the previous year. This would indicate that there was just about one-half the number in the reserve army in 1941-42 as in 1940-41.
A day or so ago the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) brought to the attention of the minister the fact that noncommissioned officers had to revert to the rank of private before proceeding overseas on draft. I realize, of course, that there are two sides to the picture, that the officer commanding the unit in England probably wants to promote his own men who have served in the ranks. On the other hand, these non-commissioned officers have served in Canada for many months and have qualified, and naturally they do not wish to lose the increased pay which they receive as non-commissioned officers. I hope, before the committee rises, the minister will make some announcement as to whether they must continue to revert to the rank of private before proceeding overseas.
A few days ago the question of the educational standard required for obtaining a commission came up, and the minister stated that the recognized standard was junior matriculation. At that time I rather took
44561-134J
from the minister's remarks that he thought I was objecting that people with educational qualifications below this standard had received commissions. I was endeavouring to point out just the opposite, that there to-day are hundreds of deserving men and non-commissioned officers who are quite capable of obtaining a commission who do not possess the educational standard of junior matriculation. In my unit there are two men who never attended high school, but who went over to England in 1939 as sergeants, and after about a year in England were recommended for a commission. They qualified at one of the schools in England and turned out to be two of the best officers in the unit. One of these men has been returned to Canada and is now giving instruction in the most advanced type of 1942 training. There must be hundreds of others in the same position. Would the minister tell the committee whether arrangements have been made whereby the standard of junior matriculation will not be set up to bar men and non-commissioned officers who have the other qualifications necessary to become officers?
Just before the house adjourned for the Easter recess the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Edwards) referred to the condition of many recruiting offices. I do not want to mention any particular recruiting offices, but I should like to join with the hon. member for Calgary West in what he said with regard to their general condition.


James Layton Ralston: This situation has been corrected. It has been changed altogether.


George Stanley White: I was going to say that some of these recruiting offices are in a very dirty condition. I would also point out that many recruits are not taken into the army on the day they apply to enlist. To tell a recruit, "come back to-morrow", or "come back this afternoon", is wrong. If you talk to many of these recruits you will find that few of them have money; if they have, it is very little, and the matter of two or three extra meals or a night's lodging is of considerable importance. Nothing is more discouraging to a young boy who has the courage and determination to want to enlist than to be told by an orderly room sergeant, perhaps in a gruff and abrupt manner, "you will have to come back to-morrow; the medical officer cannot take anybody else to-day". I am very glad to hear the minister say that this condition has been remedied.
A few days ago, when I asked the minister about the syllabus used at Camp Borden, he agreed to put it on Hansard, and it is printed on page 1891. I am not complaining about
War Appropriation

the syllabus; it is perfectly all right; but I mentioned at the time that it might be only a paper syllabus, because it shows, at the advanced training centre, that the recruit fires a rifle 55 rounds, a machine gun 120 rounds, and an anti-tank rifle 32 rounds. On the day the minister was speaking about this matter, he stated, I believe, that he was not sure whether the recruit actually fired the number of rounds set out in the syllabus; but he spoke to the assistant chief of the general staff, who was present, and then stated that he was assured that the men did fire these rounds. I notice in looking over Hansard of Friday of last week that the minister stated that the recruit did not have a Lee-Enfield rifle on which to take musketry, but he remarked to the committee that in his opinion the recruit could be trained on the Ross or some other kind of rifle. I would point out to the minister that the only time the recruit has a Lee-Enfield rifle in his hand is when he lies down on a ground sheet at a range to fire his first group of practising.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend talking now about basic or advanced?


George Stanley White: This is the advanced training centre. At the basic training centre he fires just a rifle. I should like the minister to have inquiries made at Camp Borden and to give the committee an assurance that every recruit who goes through Camp Borden advanced training centre actually fires the number of rounds on a rifle, machine gun and anti-tank rifle as shown in the syllabus which the minister put on Hansard at page 1890.
We have had one example of men proceeding from Canada overseas without being properly trained. I understand it was expected at the time the boys who went to Hong Kong were sent there that they would have time to continue and complete their training. At present, any recruit proceeding to England may find himself in action the day after his arrival. I do not think it is asking too much to request the minister to give this committee an assurance that every recruit who goes through any of our training schools does fire the actual number of rounds as shown on the syllabus. The minister, as an old soldier, knows that the firing of a rifle, a machine gun, an anti-tank gun or any other weapon is probably the most important part of the training.
I do not want to bring up again the question of allowances, because the minister has dealt with it quite fully, but there is just one question I should like to put to him. At the time the allowance board set up the rate of pay for the private soldier and the allowance to his wife, an advance was made in the

soldier's pay from SI.10 to SI.30. What yardstick was used in setting the pay at $1.30, and the wife's allowance at $30 a month?
A few days ago the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) asked the minister with regard to the troops on leave who travel from the coast to the centre of Ontario, whether an allowance was made for the time spent in travelling. I am told that no allowance is made. The minister promised to ascertain the facts. If they are as I believe them to be, will he and his department give the matter consideration? I believe the minister will be the first to admit that a boy who lives in Ontario and has to travel there from the coast should not be penalized by having several days taken off his leave.
Finally, I would ask the minister if his department is considering a change in the type of steel hat worn by the private soldier. I have seen illustrations of new types of hats worn by the soldiers of the United States, Germany, France, and Japan.


James Layton Ralston: I tried to make a note of each question as asked by my hon. friend and at the same time to listen to the next question he was putting, and I hope I have them all.
He asked first with regard to reinforcements. Naturally one must be arbitrary, because it is impossible to predict what will happen, but a scale was arrived at by Canadian military headquarters and the corps commander in consultation with the war office. The numbers of troops called for by that scale are overseas at the present time. My hon. friend will understand that I cannot give him the figures -he will not expect me to-but I can assure him and the committee that the troops provided for at full scale as laid down by the corps commander, and by Canadian military headquarters in consultation with the war office are overseas at the present time.


George Stanley White: Would the minister mind telling the committee the various types of reinforcements, what he means by ancillary reinforcements, what he means by holding companies, reinforcements with the unit, or any other ones?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I do not understand my hon. friend. Reinforcements are kept in what we called "holding units" in England, but the name has now been changed to "reinforcement units." There are reinforcement units for the infantry, the artillery, the machine gun battalions, signals and so forth. Some units have reinforcements of several arms, and reinforcements go to the various reinforcement units and from there to the

War Appropriation
active units as they are required. A very large reorganization has taken place in connection with the whole system of reinforcement units. As a matter of fact, the establishment of reinforcement units themselves, and the staff for their administration, have been very greatly enlarged in the last few months particularly because of the fact that we are preparing for the new organization which is taking place to provide for a more rapid assimilation of these men and for the better training of them so that they may be available that much more quickly and may be in better shape for the units to which they go.


Mr. STIRLING:: Many hundreds are
brought back for instructional purposes?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. That is with regard to the reinforcements. Three or four weeks ago I made a statement which was correct, and I am only repeating to-night what I said then.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
interested in this question of reinforcements, and that is about the only topic which I wish to discuss with the minister to-night. There has been a series of articles running in the press of one of the western provinces; and while I am not vouching for the accuracy of the figures there given, they are based in part at least upon a statement made by the minister on February 10 last and upon statements appearing in the little coloured books that come from the Department of National War Services. The minister will recall that on February 10, as reported at page 449 of Hansard, he made this statement:
In the army to date over 295,000 men have been enlisted and its actual strength is over 255,000.
The difference is accounted for by wastage. Peace-time wastage has been about 40,000 men, and I must say I think that is a large figure having regard to the fact that these men have not been under fire. But I am not disputing the accuracy of that or the reason for it. Later on, as reported at page 451 the minister said:
It should be remembered that apart from the fourth division and the brigade groups of the sixth division, we have in Canada over 90,000 active service personnel in training centres and elsewhere.
Therefore, according to the minister's figures, there were in the active army overseas a certain number, and by process of deduction I estimate the figure at 135,000. I will not ask the minister to give exact figures; I would not attempt to quote these figures were it not for the fact that he made reference to them, and reference is
also made to them in the leaflets "Canada At War." The figures are 135,000 men overseas, and 120,000 in Canada. The figures given by the minister are about the same figures as given by the government publications. The last one I have had occasion to examine is now a little obsolete-February 1, 1942- in which this statement appears:
The Canadian active army is composed of more than 265,000 men, about half of whom are serving outside of Canada.
A certain number of these men outside Canada were at certain strategic points not in the United Kingdom. I have no means of knowing just how many were in the colonies, but let us say as an estimate-and perhaps I am not very far wrong-that these number 5,000 men. That may not be accurate, I do not know. As I say, I have no means of knowing.


James Layton Ralston: How many did my hon.
friend say?	*


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
estimating that 5,000 were not in the United Kingdom. That would leave 130,000 in Britain. What is the disposition of these 130,000 men in Britain? According to the same report, or one number of this series of reports, it is stated:
Canada now has in Britain the first, second, third and fifth (armoured) divisions, a tank brigade and a large force of ancillary troops.
That gives a running picture of the troops over there.
In every division there is a postal unit, a provost company, a field hygiene section, dental detachments, a salvage unit, a mobile bath, and other services to care for the needs of 17,000 men. Behind are a host of corps and army troops numbering at least half the strength of the divisions themselves.
Thus it would appear to me-and I make this calculation myself-that in the four divisions and tank brigades we have approximately 70,000 men, and in the corps and army troops 35,000, or a total of 105,000 men; and the ancillary troops, are, as I apprehend, not connected with the fighting services at all. They are such as the forestry corps, engineer units engaged in tunneling and road building, very large headquarters staffs in London, pay and postal services, and I have seen that estimated at 12,500. These figures are only approximate. They may be away out of line with the truth. I do not know, and I have not taken the trouble to have the figures verified by headquarters, nor have I asked the minister to give them. If, however, I am anywhere near right, it leaves a very small number of men in the holding units for reinforcement purposes in England.
War Appropriation

I am not going to ask the minister to give them. He has stated to-night that according to a formula which has been set down-I think I heard him say by a war office corps commander-a certain quota for reinforcements for England, for the fighting forces, had been established and was being lived up to. That is reassuring, but I should like to know whether that quota is based on peacetime activity or war-time activity. That is the vital point which we should know. The minister knows that from 20 to 50 per cent of an army may be wiped out in a single action.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, no, not an army.
'Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury): Well, a corps.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or a division, then, may be wiped out in a single action. The casualties may be very large. I should like to know whether the quota which the minister says has been established is anything like the quota which was in existence in 1918. As I understand the history of that war, we had 100,000 men in the active army on the field in France. We had 100,000 in reserve in the rear and 100,000 men in England as reinforcements. Have we anything like that position to-day? That is the gist of the question which I ask the minister for the purpose of getting information-and I will invite him to go as far as he can without divulging what he may consider a military secret, because if I have asked too much I drop the question immediately. I want him to understand that my question is not for the purpose of causing embarrassment but in order to have a reassurance. The question is this: Is the quota of reinforcement personnel in England, in connection with these holding units, based on peace-time wastage or on anticipated war wastage? If it is based on peace-time wastage, I have no doubt it would be ample; but my anxiety is this: If the Canadian corps goes into action in 1942-and it is quite possible it will go into action in 1942-have we personnel in England, trained men, in sufficient numbers to take care of probable battle wastage?
I want to know first if the quota is based on a peace-time position or on probable wastage after the Canadian corps has been in action. I have some grave doubts, but I do not know; I am asking for information. I say frankly, if the minister cannot give me that information publicly, do not give it, for I do not want to embarrass the

authorities. But I think the people of Canada and the people who have sons and husbands overseas would like to have some assurance from the minister that the quota is ample for reinforcements in case there are battle casualties.


James Layton Ralston: I want to express my
appreciation of my hon. friend's approach to the matter; I accept what he says 100 per cent, and I want to go just as far as I can. I have no reservations to make in my mind, but I have reservations to make as to numbers. I know nothing about the number required at any one time; I know the quota is based on such and such a percentage for infantry, such and such a percentage for artillery, and such and such percentages for different arms of the service. That is, experience shows that there are different rates of casualties for different arms of the service. I have just noted here a formula which I think is correct. This is not any cut-and-dried formula, but is based on an approximation by those who, I believe, are competent, the best approximation they can make of what would likely be needed under conditions which can reasonably be anticipated.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does that mean battle conditions?


James Layton Ralston: Whatever conditions
they anticipate; I presume that they took into account the possibilities and probabilities, and that that quota is ample for the purpose. I am talking about those overseas.
In addition, my hon. friend will understand that, as I mentioned the other night, we have in training centres in Canada active reinforcements of over 40,000 as well. I cannot go further than that, but I can tell my hon. friend that the quota and the basis on which it is figured are made by people whom I believe to be competent, in whom I have confidence, and that is the quota we are endeavouring to live up to. I have here the figures of those who have gone over, and they are somewhat in excess of the actual figures laid down. But that is nothing one way or the other because it is an arbitrary figure.
My hon. friend mentioned the last war. It is difficult to make comparisons, but I looked up some figures and I find that at the end of the war, November, 1918, there were in France 153,431; reinforcements, 12,214, and reinforcements immediately available in England, 3,323, or practically 10 per cent immediately available. But there were potential reinforcements in France in considerably larger numbers; I have not the figure before me.

War Appropriation


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is
meant by "potential" reinforcements.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know; I suppose men in hospital.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Men behind the lines anyway.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend must
remember that if there is a holocaust or anything of that kind, a lot of men in England have been used for the formation of new units; a number of these are base and line of communication units, and if an emergency should occur, they can be used. But there is the situation in regard to reinforcements, and it has been brought to that state by constant attention. As a matter of fact, the adjutant-general has been giving as much attention to that as to anything he has been doing since he has occupied the post. We are determined that that quota shall be kept up, and if the quota is raised we will go to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course we are all in agreement that this is one' of the most important things to which the staff can give attention, the reinforcement of the men likely to be in action.


James Layton Ralston: There is no doubt about that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I feel
relieved to a degree by the assurance given by the minister, even though he cannot give me the actual percentages or figures in relation to the reinforcements overseas. I suppose he gives that on the basis of representations made by his staff, in whom he has confidence, and who of course have no object whatever in misleading him.
I think it would be well to give publicity to this discussion. I am glad I brought it out, because I think it will be reassuring to the people of Canada. If it should happen that this percentage of reinforcements is not sufficiently large, of course it is the task of the staff to raise it.


James Layton Ralston: We shall just have to bring it up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope the officials in making this quota have not been unduly influenced by the fact that the Canadian corps in England has not yet been in action. Surely we must look to the time when a second front is opened in Europe, or whatever eventuality may happen. We must anticipate the time when there will be battle casualties, and the wastage of 1,500 while the troops are not active will have no relation to the wastage in battle.


James Layton Ralston: I think the second question asked by my hon. friend was with regard to how the quotas were made up and sent to the different districts. Was that for the active army?


George Stanley White: For the active army, by military districts according to population.


James Layton Ralston: There was a table given last November in which the adjutant-general made a statement as to just how these quotas were made up, and I think that applies to-day. I have not asked the adjutant-general except just across the table here to-night, and he tells me it does.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That was not on the basis of population.


James Layton Ralston: No, three things: population, the militia activity in the particular district, that is both the number of active units that have been raised and the reserve units as well; and the recruiting record of the district.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Prior enlistment.


George Stanley White: I have that table, and I just wanted to know if that would be followed.


James Layton Ralston: Can my hon. friend give me the reference to it?


George Stanley White: I have not Hansard here.


James Layton Ralston: I was going to show it to the adjutant-general. It was made up by one of the young men in his office.


Mr. BOUCHER:: While the minister is on that subject could he give the committee any insight as to the scheme of priorities to be embarked on in the future, namely what classes he is calling?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I cannot give the statement to-night. The question of the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough was what is proposed to be done when the present age limit up to thirty is exhausted, whether we would go to thirty-five in single men or take married men without children. That matter has not been discussed, it is one primarily for national war services, although my department is interested. It will be discussed soon. I can only say that announcement will be made by the Minister of National War Services in due course. If there are any suggestions I should be glad to hear them.


George Stanley White: If the minister wants 10,000 men, does he just ask the Minister of National War Services to have that number called up, or has the minister anything to do with the way in which those men are selected and called?
War Appropriation


James Layton Ralston: I think I can say I have not anything whatever to do with the method or way in which they are called up. I make a request of the Minister of National War Services in which I say that I hereby make a requisition for blank men for military training service on the blank of blank, details of which are set out in the annexed schedule.
Then in the schedule I say that I want so many men at the basic training centres at X, Y and Z; the number required of Englishspeaking, and the number required of Frenchspeaking; so many at such other training centre, and so on, and so on. Each training centre is itemized. That is to say, a distribution is made between the training centres. But there is no statement whatsoever as to the age groups which are to be called.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is up to the Department of National War Services?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, entirely.


Howard Charles Green: Has the army nothing to say about the age groups which it is to get into the forces?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Howard Charles Green: Should the army not have some opinion?


James Layton Ralston: The army has an opinion, in this way, that a proclamation is made on the recommendation of the Minister of National War Services that men are to be called up, up to such and such an age. Within the ambit of that proclamation the Minister of National War Services calls them up.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister say the numbers of men available in the different age groups? Has the government figures on that?


James Layton Ralston: I am sure it has, but I do not have them with me. That information is gathered together in two places, namely, the Department of National War Services and, now particularly, by the director of national selective service.


George Stanley White: Will the number of men who are going to be called in the next few months greatly exceed the number called in the past year? The return I have, dated April 20, 1942, indicates that there had been only 44,846 called. If there are not going to be more than that called in the next year, you will certainly not exhaust the age limit from twenty-one to thirty.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend must not be sure about that. I am advised, just as my hon. friend is advised, that it will not be long before we shall exhaust the age groups. Up to what date is the hon. member referring?


George Stanley White: This is dated April 20, 1942.


James Layton Ralston: The last call is what date?


George Stanley White: It does not say.


James Layton Ralston: I think it would be April, as my hon. friend knows. Generally speaking, what we are planning for is to train 15,000 or more men a month-that is, 180,000 a year. That is, those who are general service men, and those called under the National Resources Mobilization Act.


George Russell Boucher: The minister said there was going to be selection by lot; when does that come into effect?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot say. I believe that is another announcement which was made by the Minister of National War Services. That announcement was made at the time the proclamation was passed extending the age limit to thirty. I do not know when it is going into effect.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: The Prime Minister announced it in his statement to the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister referred to the calling up of 180,000 a year for general service, and in the home defence. In what ratios would they be called-fifty-fifty?


James Layton Ralston: No; as a matter of fact, I am making an absolute minimum of 5,000 a month under the National Resources Mobilization Act. There will always be enough to fill up the 15,000. But suppose there are 12,000 enlisted for general service in the month, I would still call the 5,000 under the National Resources Mobilization Act. I want the committee to understand that we are limited there only by training facilities and instructors. There are not unlimited training and instruction facilities. We are extending our training centres by 50 per cent. In fact we are doing more than that, and in some instances we are going back to the custom at the time of the last war. That is to say, we are taking a unit which is partly trained and sending men to it to train with that unit, after having them paraded at the basic training centre, in order that we may have more training facilities. As a matter of fact, some of the men called are going to special training centres which will have units to take charge of the training.
I am mentioning that only to indicate that we are allowing some flexibility in the matter of training accommodation in order to see to it that all the general service men who are enlisted are trained, and that we

War Appropriation
have the minimum of 5,000 men, and whatever more are needed to bring us up to the
15,000	a month.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It will be in ratio of two to one, for the general service.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, it would be, if it came to 10,000.
Another point with which I have great sympathy is the one raised by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough with respect to the allocation of personnel called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, to units from the territory or province from which they come. I found that situation out west, and there was a great deal of complaint. One Pacific coast unit in particular was feeling badly' because the men from the middle west had been sent to it. It was simply a case where there were not sufficient men in that particular area at that time, and that unit had to be filled up, with the result that those men were sent in. That was the unit to whose commanding officer I said, "You are saying that we must have an all-out war effort, but you have a unit here which needs men. Those men are available. It does not seem to me that you should simply turn down these men because they do not happen to be from your particular area, or the area from which your unit comes." I said I sympathized with him sincerely, but at the same time we got through in the last war, and we did not turn our noses up at men from the west in the battalion I knew something about. We did not turn up our noses at men from the Pacific coast, the middle west, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Winnipeg or anywhere else. I am afraid we shall have to take the same attitude to some extent in this war. Let me say, however, that every possible effort is being made to see to it that men are alloted to units from their particular territories, just as far as that can be done. Sometimes operational reasons make it necessary that units be filled with men from other places.
With regard to the men of seventeen and eighteen years, I believe that is really a question for the Department of National War Services rather than for my department. I have said that as far as I am concerned men can enlist at eighteen for trade training. What my hon. friend is suggesting-and as a matter of fact I had forgotten it-is that the regulations which provide that men of seventeen and eighteen must have permits before they can enter restricted occupations, should be changed. I shall be glad to take that matter up with the Minister, of National War Services,
and see if it can be done. I am in sympathy with it. The ages of seventeen and eighteen are not, I think, on those regulations for the purpose of forcing men to enlist. At eighteen if a man can enlist in a trade it seems a pity to have him go into a non-essential civilian occupation.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Under the man-power bill many industries which are employed 100 per cent on essential war work-I have in mind the textile industry, the shoe industry and many others-are classified as non-essential.
I realize that the thought behind it is to drive men out of industry and into the army, and to fill their places with women. There is no denying that that is the object behind it. But here are thousands and thousands of boys who will be coming out of the high schools within the next few weeks. They cannot be employed in the industries in which they are so much needed. Those industries are classified as non-essential, whereas they are just as essential as many others. As I have said, the object is to drive men out and to replace them with women.
There is no reason whatever why these seventeen-year old boys should not be able to go into those industries which are working on war work and which are classed as non-essential under the act. They could go in for three or four months and do a very important job. To-day the only thing they can do under the act is to go on farms-the majority of them would be useless-or go into a munitions plant or a plant classified as an essential industry. Most of these boys would be useless in such plants because the type of men required are trained mechanics such as lathe men, machinists and so forth. These seventeen-year old boys are placed out on a limb, and yet these industries which are essential to the war but which are not classified as essential are denied the right to hire them. The industry of which I know the most is the textile industry, and the man-power handicap there has created a serious situation. We could overcome much of this if we had an opportunity of hiring these boys during the summer months, but we cannot; the only boys we can hire are those under seventeen years of age. It would be an easy matter to have an order in council passed to permit industries engaged in war work but classified as non-essential to employ these boys. It is only a matter of two or three weeks before they will be coming out of school and I think such provision should be made.


James Layton Ralston: What I have said I
meant, that is that I shall bring the matter to the attention of my colleague, the Min-
War Appropriation

ister of National War Services. I appreciate the last sentence of my hon. friend's remarks, to the effect that this matter should be dealt with at once.
In connection with the request for a breakdown of the reserve army, with the permission of the committee I will not place this on Hansard but send a memorandum to the hon. member who has requested it.
With regard to the pay and allowances of the reserve units and the number in the reserve army, I may tell my hon. friend that last year the pay and allowances were limited to 50 per cent of the strength. I am not suggesting that as the reason for the difference in the pay and allowances paid in 1940-1941 and in 1941-42. Some one asked whether there had been any increase in the reserve army, that is, the reserve army apart from the supernumeraries. I said there were about 80,000, but on February 14, the last date on which weekly returns were returned, the exact number was 78,322. The strength on March 31, excluding supernumeraries again, was 91,370, the increase being principally on account of National Resources Mobilization Act men posted directly to the unit-not as supernumeraries. Since that time enlistments have been considerable. Another month has elapsed, and I am sorry that I have not the figures up to date.


George Stanley White: Does the minister agree
that this system of 50 per cent pay and allowances for the reserve force units should be continued? They have now to pool their pay. If a man gets full pay he receives only 60 cents. I am sure the minister will agree with me that there is no reason under the sun why these reserve force units should be expected to pool their pay. At the end of the training season, instead of a man's pay working out at $1.30, it works out at only 75 or 80 cents. Is that system going to be continued?


James Layton Ralston: I gave the officers commanding the reserve units on the Pacific coast the assurance that I give the committee now that the present plan for the payment of the reserve army up to strength will be continued. There will not be a cut to 50 per cent.


George Stanley White: Eveiy man will get his full
pay?


James Layton Ralston: Unless he pools his pay, and that is a matter for the man. As far as we are concerned, we will pay the men who go to camp.
My hon. friend raised another point which has been raised before, with reference to 
non-commissioned officers having to revert when they go overseas. My hon. friend has stated as clearly as he could, and better than I can, the reasons why this is done. The obvious reason is that there are men in England who have been working their heads off to obtain promotion, and they feel it is not quite fair that a man should come over with stripes and perhaps take a place in their unit senior to them. My hon. friend asked me to make an announcement, but I am sorry that I cannot. The matter is under active consideration by the adjutant-general in consultation with the overseas authorities. General McNaughton, when he was over here, and the chief of the general staff had a talk with regard to it, because it affects officers as well as men. I certainly will keep it in mind and endeavour to work out some possible solution. That is the most I can say.
With regard to the standard of education required for officers, I agree with my hon. friend that there are cases-he has given instances-where an officer who is not able to meet the standard of education does just as fine, or perhaps a better job than those who can meet it. The requirement for an officer is junior matriculation or some equivalent examination. I have asked the adjutant-general whether any exceptions have been made, but he cannot tell me of any. I will see if there is any possibility of making provisions for special cases. As I have said before, however, the hard cases make bad law. Once you let down the bars you are in difficulty. I do not mean that just with reference to headquarters, because we can stand the headaches if it is the proper thing to do, but you are likely to get into a lot of difficulty and have to face charges of discrimination if you begin to make exceptions.
With regard to recruiting offices, my hon. friend will find me more emphatic than he has been with regard to the necessity of the first place the prospective soldier goes into not being dirty, and being in good shape. I have asked the civilian director of recruiting, Colonel Mess, and the adjutant-general, to keep this in mind. I may say that we have erected in Canada some special recruiting offices of standard design. These will be attractive, and I assure the committee they will not be expensive. They will make up [DOT] for the odd holes and comers which have had to be used in the past in some instances as recruiting offices. I agree that where possible the medical examination should take place where a man offers himself for recruiting so that he can get through in the one day. If that can be done, it is all to the good. To have an attractive recruiting office and an

War Appropriation
attentive man in charge is like having a good looking girl at a switchboard as the first person a person sees when he goes into an office. My hon. friend has spoken of the gruff manner of recruiting sergeants, and I know that there are exceptions in which that does take place.


George Stanley White: Where the recruit has to come back to enlist the next day, does the minister not think some provision should be made for his messing and staying overnight? In the city of Ottawa many boys are told to come back the next day. Where are they going to get their supper?


James Layton Ralston: I find that in the ordinary case they do get their supper and get looked after, but I must say that it is not official. I would think as a general principle-perhaps I am going too far without thinking it over- that where it is due not to the fault of the man but to pressure of work that he cannot be taken care of the same day, some provision should be made for looking after him. I must say that, to be frank.


Mr. NEILL:: Would the minister also suggest to his recruiting officers that they should be very careful not to make statements to the men that are not absolutely true? I have at least six cases-too many to be accidental- where the men have assured me that the recruiting officer told them they were subject to certain conditions, and afterwards they found out that it was not so. I was told afterwards that the recruiting officer had no business to make such a statement. I think they should be warned to be careful in what they say and not state the conditions differently from what will ultimately obtain.


James Layton Ralston: That very point has been emphasized in an order that has been sent out. Somebody may say: "Oh, yes, but the orders are not looked at." Let me say that it was emphasized at the last meeting of the district recruiting officers which was held only a short time ago. It is a fundamental matter, and my hon. friend is perfectly right. There is danger, particularly with an inexperienced recruiting officer anxious to get recruits, that he will become a salesman instead of an adviser. It seems to me that if a man cannot go to a recruiting officer, ask for advice and rely on the information he is given, the recruiting officer has failed in his job. I certainly will see that that point is kept before the recruiting officers. I think the officers we have now pretty well understand it and are living up to it.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Would the minister make sure that the recruiting officers differentiate,
in speaking to the recruits, between the dependent's allowance for a mother and the dependent's allowance for a wife? The recruiting officers fail to make that distinction, and it causes confusion and disappointment.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear. That is what I was referring to.


Mr. CHURCH:: I do not know anything that has caused so much confusion among the students attending high schools, collegiate institutes and technical schools in Toronto as the recent rules and regulations made in respect of young people, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen years of age entering restricted occupations in industry and war plants and joining the army. As you know, Mr. Chairman, some of the larger secondary schools of Toronto and of the county of York have as many as fifteen hundred to two thousand day students, while the night classes of the Toronto technical school and the northern vocational school have some 8,000 students. Those of that age are the type of student who want to enlist as soon as they can. They want to help. I was sorry that the minister, owing to hard work, has been unable to come to Toronto and see the work they are doing in these secondary schools, but I know he cannot be everywhere at the same time. In the past month I have seen magnificent parades of the cadet corps of some of the secondary schools in the Toronto district including some of the county of York. The cadet movement has always been the boon of the militia units. I have never seen anything like the parade they put on about half-past eleven or a quarter to twelve in the morning in some schools, marching around the streets near their schools to help to educate the people to a total war effort.
There is a great deal of confusion over the recent regulation as to those of sixteen, seventeen and eighteen in regard to restricted trades and getting into industry. I was talking to the principals of three collegiate institutes about the new orders in council this last weekend and have been receiving letters from citizens on the subject. I know that some of the war industries in the Toronto district are refusing to take on young people of these ages from the high schools because of the regulation with respect to persons from seventeen to forty-five years of age. It handicaps these industries in taking young people on, although they want to because they are good workers in holidays. We have a large number of large and small war industries in the Toronto district and many of the students of these ages at our high schools and collegiates would like to work in them in the summer as in the past so that they can go to university. These young
War Appropriation

people are the backbone of recruiting before and during the war for the reserve army. I spoke on their behalf in the last house, when the minister's predecessor was here, in 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, when many of our young people were riding the rods in the summer looking for work. That is the type of youth that has gone to the war without any compulsion. The oldest regiments in Toronto are filled with youths of that type, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen years of age. Some units pick a particular school; some others form a cadet corps.
I am sorry that this regulation in regard to restricted industries was passed affecting those seventeen and eighteen years of age, and those from seventeen to forty-five. The high schools are nearing the end of the term, and many will be closing about the first of June, or earlier than usual. Many of the young people attending them want to make a little money this summer in order to go to university. I know some of them at North Toronto collegiate, a few at Lawrence Park collegiate, and others at Parkdale collegiate, Malvern, Riverdale and Humberside, and all the other collegiates. I started on the board of education, and I still take a great deal of interest in those attending school and in education work. Some of the fathers of these young people want their boys to go in the army, would rather see them in the army because, owing to the new regulations, they cannot, if of the age of seventeen, get work in the summer. Three youths near where I live in Eglinton riding are affected by these regulations, and rather than take a chance on getting work in the summer they joined the manning pool in the Royal Canadian Air Force last week. I saw them walking on the street yesterday in air force uniforms.
It is a great mistake to handicap our youth of these ages with all these regulations. If we had taken the right methods some years ago- it is not the fault of the present minister that the young people who rode the rods a few years ago did not get a fair deal from parliament-and had adopted an .apprenticeship system such as I urged in 1936 and 1937, these young people would have signed up for three years as apprentices with military training and had lodging, pocket money, drill, clothing, and would have been learning some trade in key industries of many kinds. As a result, when the war broke out, we would have had 25,000 skilled mechanics available in the air force alone for service. That was the policy for which I worked hard for three or four years before the war. Some such policy has now been adopted in part in conjunction with the provinces, and that work is going on at Galt

and other places of vocational training, in relation to the war, as I advocated prior to the war on many occasions.
To-day there is so much confusion over the regulations that nobody seems to understand them or how they will be applied to the high schools. I have read the regulations; they are most conflicting and confusing, and scare war industries from giving work to those of seventeen years of age, and I cannot advise anybody regarding them. Some young people from our collegiates in Toronto have tried to get into the plants at Toronto and others into small arms plants. Some young people working in drug stores, boys of fourteen to sixteen, who earned $4 a week after school, have been let out. I do not know where it is going to end. Why penalize these youths whose fathers are at the war? These regulations are not fair and proper. I know the minister has taken a great deal of interest in education and cadet services, and I hope he will see that something is done for the youth of our country to clarify these rules which at present may bear heavily on the population of our secondary schools. Some of these of sixteen or seventeen years of age want to go to Toronto university, or to the school of science, but if they cannot work in war plants and make a little money in the summer they cannot go to the university. The various boards of education should have been consulted before any such regulations were passed. Some school boards before the war abolished the cadet movement in the schools, although the government has done a great deal of good work to restore it. I know the present Minister of National Defence would not have struck out the cadet vote wrhen it came before the house four or five years ago, if he had been here because he knows what the militia owe to it. A great many of our young people of seventeen and eighteen are joining the air force as a result of this army rule. They are splendid young people, as anyone can see by the parades such as I saw in Toronto the other day.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has just reinforced what has already been said on this point. At the moment I cannot say more to the committee than that it had not been borne in forcibly on my mind that this regulation did affect the seventeen-year olds. As I say, it was not in my department, but I was a member of the government which passed the regulation and take full responsibility for it. I realize also that if any change is to be made, it must be made at once, in view of the young people coming out of the schools. I am not

War Appropriation
justified in raising any hopes, but I certainly will see that it is discussed with the Minister of Labour, the Minister of National War Services, and the director of national selective service, because I appreciate what has been said and the interest which these young people have in the matter.
The hon. member for Hastings-Peter-borough mentioned the syllabus, particularly the firing syllabus, at Camp Borden. My instruction is that it is not a paper syllabus and that these rounds are fired. I rather gathered from what he said that he had some information that they were not being fired. As a matter of fact, the chief of the general staff has been at Camp Borden this week, going through all these training centres-by the way, with Brigadier Weeks, in charge of training. I shall certainly see to it that the objective is met, and that the number of rounds are fired-I do not say the exact number of fifty-six or thirty-two, but what are necessary in order to make these men familiar with their weapons.
My hon. friend said something to the effect, if I understood him aright, that the only time a man had a Lee-Enfield in his hand was when he fired. That is not so, at the advanced training centres.


George Stanley White: I remember that a week or two ago I asked the minister about the number of rifles at Camp Borden, and I think he then admitted there were not sufficient for each man. I know that every soldier there does not have a Lee-Enfield. They have a great many Ross rifles that do not have bolts.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member is talking about a basic training centre?


George Stanley White: Does the minister mean that every recruit in an advanced training centre has a Lee-Enfield rifle?


James Layton Ralston: No, I did not say "everyone," but I know there are a very considerable number, and I am quite satisfied that it is not only just in firing that the man at the advanced training centre has an opportunity of handling the rifle.


George Stanley White: Is the recruit taught his musketry on a Lee-Enfield rifle?


James Layton Ralston: Is the hon. member talking about basic?


George Stanley White: We will take the advanced. I think the minister said there were no Lee-Enfields on basic.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, there are plenty of Lee-Enfields on basic. I was disputing with the hon. friend for York West the other day
with regard to Ross rifles. He was suggesting that there are a great number of Ross rifles at basic training centres. I find that at perhaps one-fourth of the basic training centres there are Ross rifles, but at the rest there are Lee-Enfields, that is the -30s. There are enough at a great many of the basic training centres to give training to practically every man. The Lee-Enfield is used in all but about nine of the thirty-seven training centres.


Grote Stirling: But besides that, there are Springfields in a number of them, are there not?


James Layton Ralston: I called them Lee-
Enfields; I meant the Springfields. The -30 rifle is a Springfield. I understand that these rifles are at all of the basic training centres excepting nine. My hon. friend asked me if I said that there is a rifle for each man. There is not a rifle for each man at the advanced training centres, and my hon. friend will realize that probably it is not necessary that there should be. But I should be happy to show him these figures, and I am sure he would be quite reassured to learn how many rifles there are. I am sure there are plenty to enable every man to have not only an opportunity to handle them when firing but to handle them at regular musketry work.


Mr. MAYHEW:: There are a few matters upon which I should like to get some information which would be of some encouragement to the people of British Columbia, particularly those on Vancouver island.
The minister during the Easter recess spent a week on the coast-and I assure the committee it was a very busy week-visiting the different army quarters, conferring with the officers and the staff. I am sure there was not very much that he left out. Nevertheless I want to bring a couple of points to his attention.
We on the Pacific coast are satisfied that in the four-man command which has been set up we have four excellent men. We have confidence in their judgment, and we believe that they are attentive to their duties. We should like to feel, however, that the recommendations which are made by the men in the field are carried out as far as it is possible for Ottawa to do so. Occasionally we hear from a man who has recently been discharged-those who are still in the army do not complain' to one like myself-that if Ottawa would carry out the recommendations given by the senior officers on the coast we would have much better protection.
I know that the protection upon the Pacific coast has greatly increased since December.
War Appropriation

I am sure the minister was well satisfied with it by contrast with what existed there just a few months before. He has assured us that the two coasts will get full consideration as far as it is possible to furnish them with supplies of both men and material. He is not a man to make statements which he does not intend to carry out, and in that regard we are, I think, generally satisfied. We hope that supplies will increase considerably as the national production increases.
We are particularly pleased with the announcement he has made as far as the reserve army is concerned. Up to a short time ago that force was not very welcome; it did not get much encouragement unless it was producing recruits for the active army. During thp Easter recess I asked the general officer commanding if he would give me a list of the units and the number of men of which each unit was short. This he did, and I undertook to see some of the civilians in Vancouver island between Victoria and Nanaimo to ask them if they would make it their job to see that these units were filled up. Invariably the statement made to me was, "Give us a definite job to do. Let us know What it is. If they will agree to give us supplies, we will see that every unit is filled, and more too." In one place where they had only a platoon, when I asked them if they would see that it was filled up, they said, "Yes. Get away from the idea that we are a recruiting centre, and we will not only fill up this platoon but give you a company from this one point."
It is said by some that the industrial people were not quite prepared to get behind the reserve army because it interfered with the operations in their plants. That is hardly a fair statement. The manufacturers in British Columbia are prepared to assist in seeing that their men go to the camp even if it does disturb their operations considerably, but there is one handicap in that. Once they start recruiting in a plant, nearly all the men want to go to the one unit, which means that out of 100 or 200 men you are apt to have twenty or twenty-five men going at one time to the camp, and that is a serious drawback. If there were some way of dividing up so that the men would go to the camps at different times, it would relieve that situation considerably.
The situation I want to speak of concerns our police. In British Columbia we have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the provincial police and the municipal police. They work very well in peace time, but what is going to happen when a strain falls on the police force in case of a raid or under some

unusual circumstances? Who will actually control the police force at that time? There should be one head, and the question should be settled now instead of waiting until the condition actually arises to decide who is to take the lead. The principle of one command is recognized, and there should be definitely one command as far as the police force in British Columbia is concerned.
Again, we have another group of voluntary men on the island known as the rangers. Recently they have recruited, and they have now a strength of about 6,000 men who are ready to * step in behind the regular army, the reserve army, under the British Columbia command. These men are centred around the forest rangers camp, the wardens and the loggers, and they are men who know every road and trail across the island and who can be very valuable in case of attack. I wonder what support this government is giving to these men who call themselves rangers? What support will the government give them to make sure that they are a useful adjunct to the defence of Vancouver island? It will be noticed I am not worrying about the other part of Vancouver. They do not need to worry; the Japs will never get past us. We are trying to build up a protective force. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) smiles.


Howard Charles Green: I hope the hon. member is
right.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I think they should be given some encouragement. We have, in addition to that, a situation which I think is more serious than almost anything else. I refer to the danger of forest fires. If the enemy come, they can sweep over the island ' from north to south, drop leaflets, and set the whole island on fire, and it will take more help than we have in all our forces to fight such a fire, to say nothing of defending the island itself when that occurs. There is only one other source from which we can draw our supply, namely from the ordinary civilians, and I think something should be done now, envisaging the worst that might happen to us-not simply what may happen, but what is very likely to happen. I suggest that the last man on Vancouver island should be called or at least should be available for the purpose of fire-fighting. I make that suggestion to the government, or whoever is responsible for it. Here again there is the danger of not knowing just who is to assume the responsibility in case the need arises. Forest fires we have every year more or less, but if one should occur in the volume that might be expected from the enemy, it will take every man to fight it. There should be

War Appropriation
some one to say, "Your businesses are closed up; you must only provide protection enough for that. The rest of you must go and fight the fire. There is transportation to be taken care of and there is equipment for the men who go to do the work." Where is that direction to come from? Who is to give the instructions? Who is to provide the food? We have no field kitchens. Who will provide hospital care? There are not sufficient ambulances. There are many things that have to be taken into consideration, and that should be organized now. If this government is not responsible, then the responsibility should fall upon some one person. I know that in case of a forest fire the provincial government has the right to call out every man in the province to fight it, but is the provincial government going to assume that responsibility if the fire is the act of an enemy? I call the attention of hon. members to these matters not to alarm the people at home but to point out that this is a possibility which should be prepared for now, and that we should not wait until the time actually comes when action is needed. We must not take the attitude, "You first, my dear Alphonse; after you, my dear Gaston." It must be the responsibility definitely of someone now to make these necessary arrangements; for who is there who will say that it is not going to happen? If we can get some assurances on this point, it will be a great relief to the people on the island.


Grote Stirling: Does the hon. member look upon it as a four months' menace-June, July, August and September?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: June, July, August and September.


Grote Stirling: A four months' menace.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Has the minister some information to give regarding E 615180, a soldier who had six months' leave from the Department of National War Services at the beginning of April but was never notified of it, and instead of that was sent to Nanaimo, British Columbia?


James Layton Ralston: I have not the last report, but what I find is that the soldier was recommended for postponement, that the postponement was approved at national defence headquarters, that the approval went to the district, and that the young man was in a unit which, as I remember, was ordered to the west. He was sent in the unit to the west, but there was a mistake of some sort or another which I am having investigated.
The recommendation was not held up. It was accepted as recommended.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman-


James Layton Ralston: If I may be permitted, I am giving my hon. friend all the information I have from memory, and I shall probably have to report tomorrow fully what occurred.
I want to go on to deal with one or two other points, if my hon. friend will permit me. I wish to finish two other points made by the hon. member for Hastings-Peter-borough. One was regarding pay and allowances. He asked what yardstick was used whereby pay in this war was fixed at $1.30 whereas it was $1.10 in the last war. I am sorry I cannot tell my hon. friend. As far as the purchasing power of the dollar is concerned, that probably was higher in 1914 than in 1939. Why the increase was made to $1.30, I cannot tell at the moment.
With regard to troops on leave he asked that some consideration be given to the fact that troops travelling a long distance have their leave cut into by the time taken in travelling. I am advised that no official allowance on account of distance is made to troops going on ordinary leave, but there is frequently an unofficial allowance made by the officer commanding the unit, who perhaps lets a man go on Friday night and gives him the week-end extra to his leave.
With regard to embarkation leave, two clear days at home are provided for and expected.
With regard to steel helmets, that matter has had and is having particular attention. My hon. friend will understand that it is something we cannot change until we are sure we have a better pattern. Patterns are being examined in Great Britain as well as here, and as soon as something is arrived at under proper tests which seems better, we certainly shall do our part in seeing that consideration is given to its adoption. The question of material of course enters into the manufacture of large numbers of these articles.


George Stanley White: When I asked the minister about the yardstick used in raising the rate of pay from $1.10 to $1.30, the point is that last November the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in his statement said the question of this increased pay for the soldiers and cost of living bonus was under consideration. I take it from what the minister said that it is still under consideration. I would think that the first thing we should know is how
War Appropriation

they arrived at the $1.30 and the $35 a month, on what standard it was based; that would be the first thing in deciding whether or not there should be an increase. Perhaps before the minister is finished with the committee he could give some further information on that point.


James Layton Ralston: All I can say is that both the pay and the allowances were the subject of study by a committee supposed to be familiar with the matter, from the point of view not only of finance but of the services as well and some outside agencies, and the regulations were just completed, as I remember, shortly before the war broke out. The basis on which the differences were arrived at I am not in a position to say. But I understood my friend to say that the Minister of Finance last November intimated that the cost of living bonus for dependents was under consideration.	I think the Minister of
Finance is of opinion that the result of that consideration was given when he announced the appointment of the dependents' allowance board of trustees and the special provisions there. I have indicated that those questions are never closed as far as consideration is concerned, and it is I who am saying that matter is under consideration in view of representations made. However, this consideration is not a continuation of the consideration given by the Minister of Finance. I think he considered it was dealt with when the conclusion was arrived at which he announced on that occasion.


George Stanley White: Would the minister care to give his own opinion on the question of increased allowance and cost of living bonus? Would he 'tell us what he thinks as an old soldier?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I would not care to. My hon. friend will understand it is a government matter.


George Stanley White: But I have heard the minister speak about his own old battalion. Would he not tell us his views as an old soldier?


James Layton Ralston: I am not going to give any opinions without prejudice to-night.
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew) mentioned several matters in regard to the Pacific coast. I think I have said all I can about that. I appreciate his remarks about my having been out there. I certainly felt that the trip was worth while from the point of view of learning more of the job, as well as meeting many citizens whom it was a pleasure to meet and from whom I got a great deal of information and, if I may say

so, some advice. My hon. friend intimated that I was satisfied. Perhaps he did me an injustice there. I did not say I was satisfied; I said the situation was better than I expected, but not as good as I desired. A good deal has been done since that time as to plans for the defence of the Pacific coast. The statement made here to-night, particularly with regard to anti-aircraft protection, brings to my mind that a great deal has been done and is being done in that respect, quite apart from the disposition of large numbers of troops at what we regard as strategic points.
The hon. member mentioned the reserve army. I appreciate what he as an employer says about the interest employers are taking in that organization. Without them it cannot succeed; with them it can be made a great success. I do not know of any employer who sets a better example than my hon. friend, if he will permit me to say so, in the way of interest in matters of that kind.
He has spoken about having the attendance at camps staggered. He did not use that expression, but he suggested that we have it so that all men who are employees in one industry would not have to go at one time. That is a matter now under study by the district officers commanding; it has to be arranged by them, and I shall see that General Alexander has his attention called to it from headquarters, as no doubt it has been by those who are interested in the reserve units out there. I am sure some way could be arranged so that the largest possible number of men can be got to camp.
With regard to voluntary groups and the organization on the Pacific coast the hon. member embarks on another field. I want to repeat what I said earlier in the evening, that the Department of National Defence can only take on so much. I do not want to evade responsibility. There may be some responsibility on the government, particularly in connection with the matter of fire fighing battalions to which the hon. member gave most attention. That matter is under consideration at the present time; but it is not the Department of National Defence that has to do with it; it is a civilian undertaking, and must be done, I think, under civilian auspices. Without attempting to "pass the buck," I know the Minister of Pensions and National Health has the matter actively under consideration in connection with air raid precautions.
With respect to the unification or coordination of civilian efforts on the Pacific coast, there again it is a matter for civilian authorities and not the military, although I tried to do my share by seeing that General Alexander

C ensorship
was given full authority under defence of Canada regulation 32 to act for me in connection with any matters in which the Minister of National Defence is given authority. I agree with my hon. friend thoroughly that there must be organization, there must be coordination, there must be one head, to be ready for an emergency. But I believe there can be got together, if there is not already, and as a matter of fact I think there was among the civilian bodies out there a definite organization which knows what there is to be done and what to do if an emergency comes. I can assure my hon. friend that the general officer commanding in chief of the Pacific command has authority, interest, sympathy and, I am sure, has the cooperative spirit to have the army do its full share in connection with any emergency of that kind.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 5, 1942