1942-05-28

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, May 28, 1942.
Sir:-I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Thibaudeau Rinfret, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Thursday, May 28, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



INCOME AND CORPORATION TAX


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I wish to lay on the table copies of the tax agreements between the dominion and the provinces. The agreement between the dominion and the province of Quebec has now been signed and I am in a position to table complete copies of all the agreements. This is really in compliance with a motion for a return made by the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Stokes) on April 22.



ALBERTA NATURAL RESOURCES


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: If it is in order may I ask the Minister of Mines and Resources if he will see that the correspondence with respect to the Alberta bill be tabled as soon as possible.
Hon. T.' A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources): Yes. I directed this morning that inquiries be made of one or two other departments that may have correspondence relating to it. As soon as I have that information I see no reason why I should not bring it down.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: What were the freight rates on scrap metal from Calgary and/or Edmonton, Alberta, to (a) eastern Canada, (b) Vancouver, during the years 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941 and to date in 1942, by ^1) Canadian Pacific Railway, (2) Canadian National Railways?


Mr. HOWE:: From Calgary to Vancouver,
45 cents per 100 pounds; from Edmonton to Vancouver, 50 cents per 100 pounds. Rates to eastern Canada vary according to destination. Using Hamilton as typical point of destination, rates from Calgary during the years 1938, 1939, 1940 and prior to August 11, 1941, 814 cents, and subsequently 75 cents. From Edmonton during the years mentioned prior to June 9, 1941, 804 cents, and subsequently 75 cents.


FEMALE WORKERS IN WAR FACTORIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	Will the government take steps to prevent married women from working on night shifts in war factories? If so, when is it proposed to put this regulation into effect?
2.	Will the government fix the maximum weight of loads which girls are compelled to carry or handle in war factories? If so, when is it proposed to do so?
Mr. MITCHELL:: With respect to both
the.se questions, the regulation of conditions of employment in industrial establishments is a matter for the provincial authorities except in respect to wages. I should say however that the Dominion Department of Labour continually supplies the respective provincial governments with the latest information from other countries and also our own with respect to the subject matter raised in these questions.

Questions as Orders for Returns


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is hardly a correct statement. If it is in government-owned factories or federal public works we have jurisdiction over everything. Make no mistake about that.


USE OF CANADIAN CEREALS IN MANUFACTURE OF SYNTHETIC RUBBER
Mr. FAUTEUX:: 1.	Have scientific investigations been carried on by the Department of Agriculture or otherwise as to the possibility of utilizing Canadian grown cereals to produce butadiene which is used in manufacturing synthetic rubber?
2.	Has the Department of Agriculture made scientific research into the possibility of producing alcohol, rubber, starch and other commodities from certain farm products?
3.	If such research has been carried out, was a report made to the Department of Munitions and Supply thereof?
4.	Has the attention of the Department of Agriculture been called to the possibility of converting certain Canadian grown cereals into products necessary in our Avar effort by (a) companies engaged in distributing petroleum and rubber in Canada, (b) the Department of Munitions and Supply, (c) the national research council?


Mr. GARDINER:: May I suggest to the hon. member that this question in its present form be dropped and that the information be asked for from the Department of Trade and Commerce? The national research council would have any information that is available, and I think it would be better if it came direct from that department.
Question dropped.


OFFICE OF GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SECRETARY
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	Has the governor general changed his office from the east block to Rideau Hall?
2.	If so, who asked for this change?
3.	Did the government suggest that the office he moved from the east block?
4.	Was this done in the interest of economy?


Mr. CRERAR:: The arrangements for moving the offices of the governor general's secretary from the east block to government house, which are now nearing completion, have been made by mutual agreement of the departments of government concerned. This rearrangement of offices is due partly to the wartime shortage of suitable office space, which is particularly acute in the east block, and partly to the desirability of bringing together the branches of the governor general's office.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: 1.	Have representations been made to the dominion government by any of the provinces seeking amendments to the Old Age Pension Act, with a view to increasing the amount provided for in this act?
2.	If so, by what provinces and of what nature were such representations?


PRICE CEILING-FRUITS AND FRUIT JUICES
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What is the present rate of subsidy paid on the following, (a) grapefruit juice, (b) pineapple juice, (c) prunes (dried) ?
2.	What quantity of each has been imported to May 1, 1942, and on which subsidy has been paid, (a) grapefruit juice, (b) pineapple juice, (c) prunes (dried) ?
3.	What is the total amount of subsidy which has been paid to May 1, 1942, on (a) grapefruit juice, (b) pineapple juice, (c) prunes (dried) ?


PRICE CEILING SUBSIDIES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the total amount that has been disbursed for (a) domestic subsidies, (b) import subsidies since the commencement of price ceiling operations?
2.	What is the total amount as yet unpaid now due or accruing due and for which the government is liable, (a) for domestic subsidies, (b) for import subsidies?



WAR APPROPRIATION (UNITED KINGDOM FINANCING) ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'BRIEN:
1.	What is the total amount which has been expended to date, under the provisions of the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942?
2.	What methods are adopted to segregate accounting under this act from accounting for other purchases of munitions and supplies?
3.	Are records kept to indicate the total quantity and monetary value of each type of munitions and supplies purchased in Canada pursuant to the provisions of this act?
4.	Have any regulations been made by the governor in council, pursuant to section 3 of the act?
5.	Has the governor in council approved the form, terms and conditions of the obligation of the United Kingdom, pursuant to section [DOT] 4 (2) of the act?
6.	Has the governor in council approved any terms and conditions subject to which the minister may purchase Dominion of Canada securities and Canadian National Railway securities provided for in section 5 of the act?
Questions as Orders lor Returns

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What has been the total cost to date of the morale-building campaign in the aircraft industry conducted by E. G. Hirst?
2.	Have any brochures, pamphlets, magazines, circulars, or other publications or material for use in connection with said campaign been issued? If so, what firm or firms did the printing? What was the total amount paid to each such firm therefor?
3.	What has been the total expenditure for other printing in connection with this campaign, whether incurred by or under the direction of Mr. Hirst or otherwise?
4.	What is the total amount which has been paid by Mr. Garratt to Mr. Hirst in connection with this campaign? On what dates were payments made, what was the amount of each payment and for what particular purpose was each payment made?
5.	What persons have been employed and/or paid by the Department of Munitions and Supply to assist Mr. Hirst in his moralebuilding campaign? What are their names, and what salary and/or allowances does each receive?
6.	Are any persons employed to assist Mr. Hirst in this campaign who are not paid by the Department of Munitions and Supply? If so, what are their names and what salary does each receive?
7.	What is the total amount of contributions which have been received by Mr. Garratt from aircraft companies? What companies contributed and in what amounts?
8.	Have any contributions been returned to the aircraft companies? If so, what companies and on what dates?



VALMORE BIENVENUE, K.C.

Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has Mr. Valmore Bienveuue, K.C., of Quebec, been employed by the dominion government or any government commission, during the years 1941 and 1942?
2.	If so, (a) upon what dates, (b) for what services, (e) what has been paid him to date for expenses and fees?



CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition).: I should like to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health when he will be good enough to clarify the statement which he is reported to have made at Winnipeg recently and indicate what he means by "conscription of wealth".
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health); When the appropriate debate takes place I shall be glad to discuss again what I have frequently discussed in the past.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, of which I am sorry I had not opportunity to send him notice; the telegram has just come to my attention. I am informed that unrest is rapidly growing because of dismissal of 'members of trade unions in Montreal. This telegram is signed by E. E. Larose, secretary of the Montreal district council of carpenters. I shall not read the telegram because I assume it has been communicated to the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not yet received the communication which my hon. friend mentions. I do not know what Mr. Larose is referring to, but I would say in connection with the last question asked-I think it was Dominion engineering works, Montreal-


Major James William Coldwell: Last Friday.


Humphrey Mitchell: -that I have already appointed a commissioner to go there and make an investigation.


Major James William Coldwell: I will send the telegram to the minister.



GASOLINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply with reference to the cutting of the value of the gasoline coupon in the maritime provinces. I have here a telegram addressed to myself, as follows:
Obtain from Mr. Howe answers to the following questions:
If the gasoline coupon -was cut from five to four gallons in Ontario and Quebec would this release tank cars which might then be available for use in the maritimes? Could our railways handle extra tank cars if they were given to them for shipment to the maritimes? Answers to the above questions imperative to preserve national unity and faith in the government's integrity.
Saint John Trades and Labour Council.
Lancaster Board of Trade.
New Brunswick Federation of Labour.
Saint John Branch Retail Merchants' Association.
Kiwanis Club of Saint John.
Gyro Club of Saint John.
Canadian Legion, Saint John Branch.
Hotel Association of New Brunswick.

War Risk Insurance
Service Stations Section of Retail Merchants' Association.
Northern! Improvement Association of Saint John.
Uptown Improvement Association of Saint John.
New Brunswick Automobile Association.
Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Maritime Branch.
Canadian Construction Association, Saint John Branch.
Saint John Junior Board of Trade.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can only say what I have said before, that every gallon of petroleum products that can be shipped to the maritimes is being shipped. The situation in Ontario and Quebec is quite separate from the situation in the maritime provinces. As for national unity and faith in the government's integrity, my principal and paramount interest at the moment is to supply sufficient gasoline for the navy, the air force and the merchant marine.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister has not
answered the questions asked in this telegram. The first question is: if the gasoline coupon was cut from five to four gallons in Ontario and Quebec, would this release tank cars which might then be available for use in the maritimes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is no.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, that is definite.



THE MINISTER OF LABOUR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I wish to direct a question to the acting leader of the house (Mr. Crerar). Did the Minister of Labour express the views of the government when, speaking before the Canadian federation of mayors, he is reported to have said:
The war is going to be won on the North American continent, and with the United States and Canada the only two countries that have mastered the technique of mass production.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In the first place the hon. member quotes from a newspaper report. I think it would be a fair question whether he vouches for the accuracy of the report. In the second place, this is the first intimation I have heard of it, and of course he would not expect me, deputizing for the moment for the Prime Minister, to answer a question of the kind.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I should just like to say that in my experience the press is usually accurate.



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Now that hon. members have before them the rates of pay and allowances of the three branches of his majesty's forces I would ask the government, or the three ministers of defence, if they would consider the inequalities and injustices therein shown. I would suggest that the three ministers, together with the Minister of Pensions and National Health, have the pensions committee consider the subject, as was said when these matters were debated early in September, 1939. Probably the Minister of Pensions-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: Order. I am afraid that question cannot be answered to-day. If the hon. member would put it on the order paper it might be answered to-morrow.


Thomas Langton Church: You might as well put it in the wastepaper basket. I am going to challenge that ruling some day, Mr. Speaker.



WAR RISK INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 56, to make provision with respect to insurance of property against war risks and the payment of compensation for war damage.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Vien in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: The bill has been reprinted as amended. Copies of the reprinted bill are on the table.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Interpretation.


Mr. NEILL:: I want to ask a couple of questions of the minister in charge of this bill.


Thomas Vien: Are they applicable to the definitions?	,


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. Are we dealing with the whole of section 2 or are we going to take it up by paragraphs?


Thomas Vien: We can take it up
paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs (a) to (e) inclusive agreed to.
War Risk Insurance

On section 2, paragraph (f)-Inland waters.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to congratulate the banking and commerce committee on having inserted this definition covering inland waters. I wonder if it meets with the approval of the administration, since it was not in the original bill. Canada being a country with large indentations on her coasts, I think this was a very desirable amendment. Is the minister in agreement?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; I am in agreement with the amendment.


Alan Webster Neill: Should that not read "for the purposes of this act"? I believe inland waters are defined somewhere else, and this might be taken to be a subsequent ruling or alteration.	-


James Lorimer Ilsley: The opening words of the section are, "In this act, or in any policy of insurance executed pursuant to this act, unless the context otherwise requires". Therefore the definition is subject to this limitation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
limited to this act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Thomas Vien: This clause was added by the banking and commerce committee.


Mr. HAZEN:: I was under the impression that the word "rivers" was to be included in this paragraph, so that it would read, "Inland waters means all the lakes, rivers and other navigable fresh waters". Was that left out by inadvertence? Some rivers are not fresh water streams. I have in mind the Saint John river, in which the water is tidal for about eighty-four miles, and it is not fresh for some thirty or forty miles from its mouth. When the bill was before the committee I was under the impression that the word "rivers" was to remain in this subsection.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will check at once to see if that is a mistake. I think it is, personally. My recollection is the same as that of the hon. gentleman. Perhaps we could go on with the other paragraphs and let this matter stand, so that in the meantime it may be checked.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What has been said applies to nearly all the rivers on the Atlantic coast. The Miramichi river is in exactly the same position as the Saint John river; so are the Restigouche and all the important rivers of New Brunswick. There are also tidal rivers, with the sea running in
[The Chairman.]
and out of what are really salt water lakes, although I do not think they are very important. I suggest that the word "rivers" be put in now and be done with it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want to keep it uniform
with the definition in the Canada Shipping Act.


Mr. REID:: Does this also take in salt
water? It mentions fresh water rivers, but I am thinking of a place like the Queen Charlotte islands, out in the open sea, where there are harbours, ships and other property. I think the minister should make it clear whether or not this bill refers only to rivers and tidal and fresh waters. If it does, then the bill is very narrow.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If I understand the hon.
gentleman properly, he is under the impression that only property on inland waters may be insured. The property that may be insured is property in Canada, but not including ships other than vessels used solely in docks, ports, rivers or inland waters. The question is whether we have been too restrictive in our definition of inland waters. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will state his point again and tell us what he has in mind.


Thomas Reid: I am thinking first of all of
Juan de Fuca straits, where our fishing boats and other vessels go; and of the Queen Charlotte and other islands seventy or eighty miles out to sea, where there are harbours and ships and property of all kinds.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They are excluded because
they can be insured without regard to this act.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Would this cover
Burrard inlet, which is part fresh and part salt water? That is where all our shipbuilding is, where all the ships load, and there the fresh water meets the salt water halfway up the inlet. As I understand this section, the act would not apply there.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Ships are excluded other
than vessels used solely in docks, ports, rivers or other inland waters. If the vessel is used solely in a port it is regarded as property in Canada, and insurable.


Alan Webster Neill: Under what section?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is paragraph (j). I was to check to see if the word "rivers" had been intentionally omitted from paragraph
(f). I would point out that the definition in the Canada Shipping Act includes the word "rivers". As it appears in line 21, page 2 of the bill, it would therefore be a repetition to include rivers in the definition of "inland

War Risk Insurance
waters". The property that may be insured is property in Canada, other than ships- "other than vessels used solely in docks, ports, rivers, or inland waters." That permits insurance of the vessels used solely on the Saint John river, because they are used only on a river. It also permits vessels used solely in inland waters to be insured, and for the purposes of this measure it is useless to include in the definition of "inland waters" the word "rivers" over again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it would not do any harm, would it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I do not think it would.


Thomas Reid: Does the paragraph exclude
ships? It says, "shall not include ships, other than vessels used solely in docks."


Richard Burpee Hanson: Because they are now insurable; that is the theory.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Is it not the
intention to include all other navigable waters? Could we not leave out the word "fresh"?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The phrase in the shipping act is "navigable fresh waters".


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask what the word "insured" means, under section 2. The definition in paragraph (g) is,-
(g)	"Insured" means any person with whom the minister enters into a contract of insurance.
This measure is one which insures property against war risk. Who takes more war risk than the soldier, who has been denied by the minister a national system of insurance? I say he should come under this section. The committee has ignored that point altogether, but the soldier is property, and he is taking the greatest risk in this war. There is no use in our having a law for property and no law for human life. The definition should have included a proper system of national insurance for soldiers and their dependents now and for three years after the war. I would ask the minister to explain what the term "insured" really means, and why soldiers who risk all are forgotten.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If it is satisfactory to the committee, we might pass paragraph (f).
Paragraph (f) agreed to.
On section 2, paragraph (g)-"insured".


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for Broadview has a question to ask on this paragraph.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I understand that the hon. member has asked me to make a statement
with regard to life insurance for returned soldiers. I submit that such a statement would not be in order on this bill.


Thomas Langton Church: Paragraph (i) defines
"person". Is the minister prepared to make a statement to the effect that he will include in the word "person" a soldier in the armed forces? We must remember that the soldier is taking a greater risk than anyone else. His life, even death itself, and his property and family are at his country's service. Here we have a bill containing a number of definitions which, I submit, are purely academic, as is the whole act. I doubt if one dollar will ever be paid under this measure; in my opinion it is just like the black-outs.
The public has not been informed as to the meaning of this bill, nor have the members- all is secret, and the definitions will lead to untold litigation and relieve the insurance companies of their duty. It is not the function of parliament to deal with property and civil rights in the provinces; those are matters over which the federal parliament has no jurisdiction. Neither have we any right with respect to the law of contract or laws involving employers and employees. The committee will be wasting its time if we go any further with this measure this year, while refusing even to deal with the soldiers' insurance matter which has been on the order paper since the war began; they ignored it because the insurance companies opposed it. The standing committee which considered this measure, and accepted the definitions appearing in the bill, forgot all about the soldier who is bearing all the risk he does for the country, and gets only $1.30 a day for flying over Germany.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This may be the appropriate place to discuss the question raised by the hon. member for Broadview.


Thomas Vien: We are on the definitions section; the principle of the bill is not yet involved.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are
talking about what is covered by the term "insured", and I am suggesting that what has been said is relevant. We are considering a bill to insure persons and property against damage from war; in other words we are considering damage to material things. In tnis bill the government has failed to give any consideration to insuring the lives of the men who are fighting for us, and who are risking their all.


Thomas Vien: I do not believe that the point raised by the leader of the opposition properly comes under the definition of the
War Risk Insurance

word "insured". The question now before the committee is as to what that word should mean. The definition suggested in the bill is:
(g) "Insured" means any person with whom the minister enters into a contract of insurance.
The point now before the committee is therefore what the word "person" should include for the purposes of this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Speaking to the point of order, I believe the chairman is technically correct. I am not questioning his decision. I could have made my observations on the preamble, but since the subject has been brought up by the hon. member for Broadview I thought this was the proper time to speak. If I am ruled out of order I shall reserve my right to speak on the preamble of the bill.


Thomas Vien: I am afraid it will be impossible to follow the rules of the house if any hon. member is permitted to discuss a subject which is not before the committee. Paragraph 2 of standing order 58 is very clear on that point. The Chairman, of course, is exclusively in the hands and at the service of the committee, but he must apply the rules. If hon. members do not strictly confine their remarks to the section before the committee, they violate a rule which it is the duty of the Chairman to enforce.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to speak to the point of order. We are discussing what shall be insurable under this bill, and the hon. member for Broadview wanted to include some other classes of person than those referred to in the paragraph.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is property that is insurable under this bill. The hon. member for Broadview was talking about life insurance, not property insurance.


Alan Webster Neill: The paragraph reads:
"Insured" means any person with whom the minister enters into a contract of insurance.
The hon. member was discussing whether that would include Jones or Smith.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This would cover every man in the forces who loses property which is insured under this measure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member was asking that you insure his life.
Paragraph (g) agreed to.
Paragraphs (h) and (i) agreed to.
On section 2, paragraph (j)-property.


Alan Webster Neill: It may be my ignorance and I may have lost touch with the meaning of
legal language, but I do not understand just ' [The Chairman.]
what this covers and I should like to have some information from the minister. I think the drafting of this paragraph could be made clearer. It states that property shall include certain things but shall not include land, growing crops, plants and trees, as well as ships, other than vessels used solely in docks, ports, rivers, or inland waters. First, I should like to know whether "trees" would cover standing timber and timber that is lying down, what they refer to as fallen timber. If fallen timber and trees are not included, one of the greatest assets of British Columbia will not be insurable. This is one of the things that is most likely to be subject to damage by the enemy. All they would have to do is to send over some planes with these leaflets or inflammable packets and they would be able to do incalculable damage. It is estimated in British Columbia that there is always one billion feet board measure of timber fallen and cut into logs. It is this type of timber that would be likely to suffer the most damage, because fire might start in the logs when they are lying close together and the damage would be great.
My next question has to do with the paragraph referring to ships, other than vessels used solely in docks, ports, rivers, or inland waters. This definition would apply to shipping on the great lakes, but on the Pacific coast there is an investment, I believe of $800,000,000, in the canning industry and the shipping industry which is connected with it. A boat may leave Vancouver to go to the west coast to fish or to bring back a shipment of salmon and it would be liable to enemy action off the west coast. Apparently that boat is exempted from the provisions of this bill and it would not be possible to insure it. I understand that the insurance people will not insure against war risk in these waters.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman is not correct.


Alan Webster Neill: Once the ship got outside the harbour it would not come under this bill. I may not have understood this paragraph correctly, and I hope I am wrong, but it would seem that the two largest interests in British Columbia have been forgotten.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Standing timber and trees are not insurable under this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or fallen
timber?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Anything severed from the
soil such as logs and lumber is insurable under this bill. The practice under fire insurance is exactly the same. It would be almost impossible to ascertain the damage to standing

War Risk Insurance
timber as well as the cause of the damage, and after consideration we decided that we should not go into the business of insuring standing timber when nobody else does.


Alan Webster Neill: Is the minister sure that
standing timber is not insurable?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not insurable under
this bill.


Alan Webster Neill: But logs will be?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to have the minister's assurance that fallen timber will be insurable. With respect to the insuring of standing timber, I have investigated this on many occasions. On the one occasion on which I was able to attend the banking committee this subject matter was under discussion, and I gave the committee briefly the benefit of my experience. Many attempts have been made to insure standing timber, but the estimate of risk and hazard is so indefinite that none of the insurance companies within recent years, so far as I can recall, have ever undertaken it. I am inclined to think that the government is wise in not undertaking this class of business. If they did, the premium would be prohibitive because you would be entering a new field of insurance. So far as I know even the lumber mutuals on the Atlantic coast have never attempted anything of the kind, and they give the cheapest insurance in the world. The committee is to be commended for not having included that. The public will be glad to be assured that severed timber, either manufactured, or unmanufactured, will be insurable under this bill. The risk and hazard can always be measured by the position of the insurable object, that is, its proximity to railways and other exposures.


Alan Webster Neill: The brief of the Canadian
Manufacturers association refers to the fact that standing timber is not insurable, but there is this point which the minister apparently overlooked, that timber and forest fire fighting expenses can and should be covered. That is to say, a man may expend $150,000 in putting out a fire, and this brief asks that that be included in the bill. There is a distinction; they do not ask that we should insure standing timber, but they ask that we insure the cost of fighting a fire.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wonder
if that came before the committee?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The brief was filed with the secretary of the committee and was available to the members. I do not know whether they read it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Members
of the committee are present here; I should like to know if consideration was given to that matter. After all, it is an important factor. You can always insure fire fighting equipment, but this refers to the cost of fighting a fire. Would the minister give further consideration to that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: As I understand it, what is referred to is an agreement by the insurance company to indemnify the insured against the expenses of fighting a fire. That would be out of line with the rest of the bill, which is to protect corporeal property and nothing else.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It might be
a loss arising directly out of the war.


Alan Webster Neill: I am waiting for information about the boats.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni raised two questions, and I dealt with one only.
The second was the matter of ships. The information which the committee obtained was that all ships on the sea, that is ships outside of inland waters, are insurable. Confirmation was obtained of that. The hon. gentleman said that certain ships which he mentioned were not insurable, but I think he is wrong about that. That is the information I have. There was some telegram from a shipping insurance broker or agent in Montreal stating that these ships were insurable.


Mr. ROWE:: I agree with the leader of the opposition as to the difficulties and complications that may be involved in attempting to insure standing timber and growing crops, but I find myself also in some agreement with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. In view of the great fire hazards of modem warfare, careful consideration should be given to insuring against the cost of forest fire fighting at least, if standing timber itself is not to be insured. The greatest risk to which our natural resources are exposed in modem warfare is forest fires, especially in British Columbia. Modem warfare creates similar hazards for growing crops, which are also excluded from insurance under clause 2. This whole clause should be reconsidered and a further effort made to provide insurance against this fire risk, which is greater in this war than ever before. Fire risks in the last war and this war are not at all comparable, for reasons that are obvious.
Growing crops, especially in the vast areas of western Canada could be very seriously damaged by fire. In peace time we have hail insurance and crop insurance, and I see no reason why insurance should not be available
War Risk Insurance

for the risks which are made so much greater by our modern warfare through aeroplanes carrying incendiary bombs, by means of which vast areas of ripened grain and standing timber could be destroyed. While I appreciate the difficulty of insuring standing timber, I do think that the costs of fire fighting should be considered under this clause, as well as the insurance of growing crops.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not see any reason why standing timber should not be included in this bill. Some arrangement might be made with the lumbermen's association by which every lumberman of British Columbia, for example, would insure his timber at a premium commensurate with the risk. There never has been insurance for standing timber, but the hazards from fire to-day are far greater than they have ever been before, and I certainly think that those who own these tracts of timber should be entitled to have insurance to protect them. Coupled with that, the lumbermen should be forced to take proper precautions to safeguard their timber interests. Something of that kind might be worked out through the lumbermen's association.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Just a word which may not be a valuable contribution to this discussion but may be of interest to hon. members. Hon. members have said that there has been no insurance of standing timber, but I remember that in 1910 or 1911, when the firm of Price Brothers and Company made its first issue of bonds on the London market, the bond brokers insisted that insurance be placed on the standing timber, and an insurance policy was accordingly written by a group of Lloyds underwriters. Some time after that, a small fire occurred and a claim was asserted against the underwriters. The validity of the policy was contested on the ground that there had not been sufficient representations with reference to the thing insured. Action was instituted against one Mr. Heath as a test case against the various underwriters, and a commission was sent to Canada to take evidence as to the value of the property that had been destroyed by the fire. The commissioner was George H. Montgomery, K.C., of Montreal. The commission sat in Quebec, and I appeared before the commissioner to submit the evidence. I do not know that there ever was a judgment on the merits of the case. Sir William Jowitt represented Price Brothers in London, and when the case came up for trial he suggested, and I think the suggestion was accepted, that the court should first of all pronounce upon the value of the plea against the insurance 
policy. There was a decision that the insurance policy was a valid policy, and following that, I think the amount payable under the policy was adjusted. I know we were informed at that time that the underwriters of Lloyds would never again have anything to do with such a policy, and I do not think insurance has been placed on standing timber since that time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank you. I dare say that is correct.


Mr. GREEN:: The definition of property would be sufficiently wide to cover fishing boats on both coasts were it not for the exception contained in paragraph (j) (iii). Under that definition fishing boats on the coasts cannot be insured although fishing boats on inland waters can. The main reason given in the committee for excluding coast fishing boats was that to insure them would be entering into the marine insurance business, which was pictured as a complicated business, and it was claimed that the government should not enter into such business at this time. Yet members of the committee will notice as I have said that ships on the great lakes or on other inland waters can be insured under the provisions of the bill because they are under the proviso in subparagraph (iii) of section 2 (j). I cannot speak for the eastern coast; I leave that to members representing the maritime provinces. But on the western coast our fishermen have to go out from different ports and also fish at the mouths of our rivers. Of course they are fishing in salt water, and under present war conditions they are fishing in very dangerous areas where, should there be a Japanese raid, these boats, or some of them at any rate, would be certain to suffer damage or be destroyed. The danger has been recognized by the government in that provision has been made for pensions to be payable to the fishermen, if they should be injured, or to their dependents should the fishermen lose their lives as a result of enemy action.
This fishing on the western coast is of great importance to the war effort of the united nations, because this year all the salmon and herring pack is to go to Great Britain to provide food for the British. An announcement was made in the press on March 3 of this year, quoting the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) as saying that we are going to make available to the United Kingdom all the canned salmon and herring that can be put up in 1942. So that many of these west coast fishermen are going out fishing for food for Great Britain.

War Risk Insurance
Another feature which should be considered is that to the ordinary fisherman his boat is his all. Everything he has is tied up in his boat and gear. Within the last few months, since Japan declared war, this government has arranged for the sale to white fishermen of 800 Japanese fishing boats. These Japanese boats are now being taken out by the white fishermen and will be used with the rest of the fleet in bringing in the catch this year.
It was explained in the banking and commerce committee that at the present time it is possible to get insurance on these fishing boats by obtaining it through San Francisco, but we were told that the rate to be paid as premium is either a dollar a hundred for a year, or a dollar a hundred for every three months or for thirty days. We were not given information as to which was correct, but in any event by contrast the premium under this measure was expected to be about 15 cents a hundred. So we have this position, that if no provision is made for them these fishermen will have to pay at least a dollar a hundred to get insurance through San Francisco, and the minute there is a Japanese attack the companies will probably stop issuing policies. At best therefore it is a very poor type of protection for them.
I submit to the committee that it is most unfair not to provide protection for these men. It may be that they should not be protected by this bill, though I think they should. The government should face the difficulties and provide that fishing boats can be covered under the bill. If that is not possible, I suggest that some other method must be adopted. Mr. D'Arcy Leonard, who drew this bill, and advised the banking and commerce committee throughout, made the following statement in his report to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), contained in paragraph 19, referring to the question whether or not ships should be covered:
I do think however that we should canvass the possibility of making an arrangement with either the maritime shipping commission of the United States or the British war risks insurance office to make sure that cover is available at reasonable rates to Canadian hulls and on cargoes in which Canadians are interested.
It may be that this method could be adopted; that the government could make some arrangement with either of the bodies mentioned by Mr. Leonard, in order that these fishermen might get coverage at reasonable rates. Another suggestion made in the committee was that they be covered by special order in council. It was suggested that the government pass an order in council which would provide for insurance for fishing boats. I am not insisting on one method or the other
being followed, but I do submit to the minister that it is of the utmost importance that some arrangement be made to cover these fishermen, and that it be made now. We should not wait until after damage has been done to a hundred or two hundred of these boats, after they have been destroyed perhaps, to take steps to enable the fishermen to get protection. They are doing a real job not only for Canada, but also for Great Britain. They are running grave risks and are certainly entitled to protection.


Mr. PERLEY:: I think the point made by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) is well taken. In subparagraph 2 of paragraph (j) it is provided that "growing crops, plants and trees" shall not be included. As this war proceeds we shall find in western Canada, while the air training scheme is in operation, that some flyer is forced from time to time to land, and there is no better place in the world in which to land than a large field. In the fall of the year when there is a growing crop a fire might easily be started which would burn the whole crop. That applies too to the stook stage. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe mentioned the fact that leaflets or incendiary bombs might be dropped. We may be attacked in that way later on. The enemy may send aeroplanes and drop these things, and they might easily set fire to growing crops. The farmer should have protection. Growing crops should not be excluded. It should be possible for these men to get insurance.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I was not present at the last meeting of the committee w'hen the matter of insurance on fishing boats was discussed; unfortunately I had to attend another committee meeting. However, I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), in the points he has raised. I do not know to what extent these fishing boats on the west coast are insured. I can see how an enormous amount of damage might be done to fishing boats through bombing or some such enemy action if it should come about at the time of year when fishing boats are in the harbour. Last fall while in Prince Rupert I saw how close together these boats were anchored when in the harbour. A bomb or two dropped among them would create terrible havoc. The express purpose of this insurance is the replacement of assets. In view of the importance of the fishing fleet in procuring food for ourselves and for Great Britain, if such destruction took place and the boats were not insured, the government would have to
War Risk Insurance

spend money in the building of new boats in order that the fishing industry might be enabled to carry on. For these reasons I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Vancouver South in the suggestions he has made and I hope the minister will give them consideration.


Mr. POTTIER:: I was not privileged to be a member of the committee on this bill. I would associate myself with the hon. members for Vancouver South and Vancouver East in regard to insurance on fishing vessels. In the last war we lost I think twenty-seven ships on the Atlantic coast, the direct result of German submarine activity. The fishing fleet was practically wiped out. Compensation for that loss was paid through the German reparations commission that went around the country holding hearings in 1924 or 1925. As a result of that loss and delay certain individuals and companies went into bankruptcy. The fishing fleet on the Atlantic coast suffered severely, and the industry felt that loss for a number of years.
I am a little confused as to why there should be insurance on ships on inland waters but not on those on the high seas or coastal waters. Apparently under this bill some arrangement is made whereby fishing vessels on the great lakes are to be covered. Why the distinction? There might be complication in paying partial loss as against total loss, which is what would happen in 90 per cent of the cases. I think we would be wise to make provision for that. I am thinking particularly of what took place in the last war, the great toll of fishing vessels and the resulting damage to the industry. I urge upon the minister that he see to it that something is done, if not by this measure then by some other procedure, as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Douglas King Hazen: I should like to see fishing boats included in this bill. We have along the shores of the bay of Fundy, in the counties of Charlotte, Saint John and Albert, many men who make their living-not a very lucrative living-by fishing. These men usually go out from their villages in what we used to call salmon boats, which are between twenty and thirty feet long. At present they are motor-powered and usually carry a crew of two. The boats are used for salmon and lobster fishing and for tending the sardine nets. It is quite impossible from a practical point of view for these men to take out insurance. The marine rate is very high. The boats, while of no high intrinsic value, are of great value to their owners. I am not speaking of ships now but of these smaller
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
fishing boats. It seems to me they might well be included under section 2, subparagraph (j)(iii); after the word "ships", add the words "other than fishing boats". The size of the boats could be defined-"other than fishing boats of a certain size."
We were told in the committee that it was possible to take out marine insurance on vessels. But the rates are very high, consequently it is impossible for these small fishermen to take out insurance. They should be afforded protection.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: In
the committee "ships" were discussed many times, I think at nearly every sitting, and although that section was passed I do not think the members were satisfied with it. I believe these fishing boats should be covered, especially if they are registered and inspected by the government inspector.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Those over ten tons.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, they should be inspected and if they are in first-class condition they should be covered. A large number will not pass inspection and therefore will not be registered. Those of course will have to be out, but those that can be registered should be in. The bill was thoroughly discussed in the committee, but this is one point on which the committee really was not satisfied.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister in answer to a question asked by myself a few minutes ago said it was his definite understanding that these boats on the Pacific coast could be insured. I presume his information is correct, but I should like to emphasize that the expression was, insured now against war risk. We know there is insurance. The hon. member for Vancouver South placed information on the record which apparently had been submitted in committee, indicating that it is almost impossible now to obtain war risk insurance on the coast; it can be obtained only through San Francisco, which might at any moment withdraw the scheme. Also the cost is enormous.
The hon. member also brought out the fact that 800 Jap boats had been seized and sold to white people. He drew a picture of the need that there is for the protection of these boats. But that is only a portion; there is the white element too. The Jap proportion is something like 14 per cent, so that apparently there would be about 1,800 boats out in the Pacific. You can imagine how enormous the loss would be in the event of enemy action. There are hardly any boats

War Risk Insurance
that do not go out in the open sea beyond the three-mile limit, where they are exposed to all kinds of enemy attack.
Mention has been made that fishing boats on the great lakes can be insured. That puts the minister or the government, or the committee if you like, in rather an awkward position. The committee after due consideration accepted and allowed the government to insure boats on the great lakes where they are safe from enemy attack, or at any rate where attack is unlikely, but they will not do it for fishermen on the sea, where it is most needed. The hon. member for Broadview used what I thought extravagant language a little while ago when he said this measure was of no use and that nothing would be paid under it, but I am beginning to wonder whether that charge cannot in some sense be sustained. We are making a gesture about giving insurance, but when it comes to the point the real fishermen will not be insured. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare spoke of making it apply only to registered boats,, which means boats of over ten tons. That may be all right on the Atlantic, but on the Pacific coast many of our small fishing boats, although some are worth $2,500 and up, are under ten tons burden. I do not want to suggest that there is anything sinister about this thing at all; that was the last thought I had in mind, but I do find this very inconsistent. Some of those who were members of the committee have said frankly that they were not satisfied with the decision of the committee, so that it might be a matter for further consideration, to see if the words "fishing boats" could not be included. Otherwise I should like to know who gets the benefit of the act, if it is supposed to be brought in to protect the fishermen. It seems almost like the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out.


Thomas Langton Church: I agree with the hon.
member for Vancouver South, that the poor man out at sea fishing should be given some protection, with this war on. The definition of property does not even include those mentioned under the Farmers Creditors' Arrangement Act. It covers a dwelling up to the value of $3,000, but it does not cover a ship, except on the great lakes.
This and the preceding parliaments incorporated many insurance companies, through private bills-Canadian companies, Canadian-American companies, Anglo-Canadian and British companies-to perform the very functions covered by this act. Some of the larger companies have made fortunes out of the hundreds of millions of dollars paid in premiums on life insurance, automobile insurance, marine insurance and all the other kinds of insurance now in force. They have amassed large sums of money, and in my opinion should have been required to issue these policies and function and do this very work, though at the time the charters were issued there was some question as to whether some of the powers granted were within the jurisdiction of this parliament, since insurance is a matter of concurrent jurisdiction. But the companies will not take these risks, though they collect premiums for what I might describe as insurance against plague, pestilence, famine, battle, murder and sudden death. They even insure against certain contingencies of the weather; in the case of an exhibition or a sporting event they will insure against rain, and they do that in peace and war alike.
The trouble with this parliament is that the agents of these large insurance companies have too much influence with our committees and we forget all about soldiers and their risks. I have seen representatives of insurance companies appearing before committees to which I have belonged, submitting prepared briefs and all the rest of it. After all, this is only a small bill, limited in one respect to a total for the year of only $50,000 and in another to $3,000 for dwellings; but when you consider the work being done by these poor fishermen to whom the hon. member has referred, since the companies which should carry this insurance refuse to do so, those men should be protected by this bill. The collection or production of fish food is one of the basic industries of this country, the fisheries, in peace or war. So far as the working man is concerned, his burden is heavy enough already, with all the taxes which have been piled upon him by this government. I do not see where the minister is going to get all the money to finance this proposal, which I look upon as an improvident half-baked scheme. Within the last two years we have launched upon a large unemployment insurance scheme. Now they are trying to load up that fund, though when my leader Viscount Bennett was here they had a report that the fund was not solvent. Watch what will happen. This committee has no information before it at all. We are asked to go into something which might cost a fabulous sum of money and bankrupt the country, yet we do not know anything that took place before the committee, because their meetings were private. I do not see any reason for all the secrecy being maintained. I do not know why the questions and answers and information given to the committee could not be given to parlia-
War Risk Insurance

ment. The British parliament gets all that information. That is the trouble here. We talk about secrecy, yet the enemy know everything we do. They have their agents and envoys right here at times in this city and have full details of every statute we pass. I hope the government will get rid of this secrecy business, because it is not secrecy at all.
As I have told the minister I believe this is a scheme by which the insurance companies are endeavouring to escape from the discharge of their duties and transfer the responsibility to the federal government on this form of insurance. Fortunately in another part of this building we have a body which knows a great deal about insurance, and which I hope will give careful attention to this matter and bill.
I believe we should consider the ability of the government to carry all this and the solvency not only of this scheme but also of the unemployment insurance scheme and other similar matters. Here we have the government saying what premiums shall be paid and what property may be insured. This is a second government insurance scheme, and why should these private companies, which have collected so much money both before and since the beginning of this war, unload their responsibility on the government? The insurance companies have the profits of peace, and as sportsmen they should be prepared to take some of the losses of war. I tell you the country cannot afford this expenditure at the present time. While I approve the principle of the bill, I believe it should be laid over until next year, and in the meantime the government should attempt to force all kinds of these companies to fulfil the functions for which they received their charters and collected hundreds of millions of dollars in premiums.


Mr. JACKMAN:: In associating myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South, I believe that those engaged in coastal fishing should be protected under this bill. In the first place the premiums to be set by the government probably will be somewhat lower than those exacted by commercial companies, and this is as much a war-time industry as any other in the country. Secondly, and more important, I should like to point out to the minister what the situation will be if losses occur among the people engaged in fishing off our coasts, if losses occur due to war risk. Their catch now I believe is subject to the price ceiling. If it is, then the cost to the government to export that catch abroad

will not be commensurate with the risk involved. It seems to me that after all it is the government's risk, and it is better that the government should give those engaged in this industry the assurance that they will be covered at a reasonable premium, perhaps not one fully commensurate with the risk but nevertheless something above the rate of 15 cents per hundred which was mentioned as the general war risk premium which might be imposed. If the coastal fishermen feel they are going to have to bear all the risk themselves, that it is not to be shouldered proportionately by the people of Canada, then if their boats are sunk or other damage is occasioned by enemy action, certainly they will not go out to bring in the fish. It is not reasonable to expect them to do so. This should be the risk of all the people of Canada. It would be better to make some provision to bring these fishermen under the bill instead of waiting until a time when the government will have to take some other action to compensate them in order to give some assurance that they will not be left to bear the whole burden themselves.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like the minister to explain why inland boats are included while coastal boats are not. There must be some explanation for it. As was pointed out by the last speaker, it is the duty of the whole of Canada to absorb a part of this risk. For the last two or three years on the Pacific coast, and I presume it has been the same on the Atlantic coast, these fishing boats have been used for patrol purposes in watching for enemy activities. We expect them to go out in infested waters to protect us, yet we do not permit them to take advantage of this insurance. I do not know whether they are covered in any other way, but certainly they should be protected. They have been organized in the province of British Columbia, as I suppose they have been on the Atlantic coast, into voluntary patrols. There must be some explanation as to why we are going to insure boats in inland waters and not allow this insurance to apply to those who are actively engaged in both fishing and patrol work on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.


Mr. NOSE WORTHY:: How does the minister justify the discrimination involved in this paragraph? My objection to the paragraph is that it is definitely discriminatory legislation. We are giving to the people in the central part of Canada and to those adjoining inland waters certain privileges which we are withholding from those on the coasts. I fail to

War Risk Insurance
see how any hon. member representing a constituency on either coast can support such a proposal. It would appear that we should either leave ships entirely out of the bill or include those operating on the coasts as well as on the lakes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Or amend the bill.


Mr. STIRLING:: I was not a member of the banking and commerce committee, so that I have heard only one side of the question. I presume that when he was before the committee the minister expressed his views as lo the way in which this matter is to be handled. As I understand it the whole object of the bill is to spread over many shoulders the risk which may be incurred by Canadian citizens; and as the danger to those who live and have their being on the two coasts is so very much greater than to those who carry on their livelihood in the centre or other parts of the interior, I cannot see why those who navigate the coastal waters-I speak particularly of the Pacific coast-should be excluded. The men who occupy those boats and carry on the industry are the very men to whom the country has turned to form a part of the fishermen's patrol. Having heard the case put forth by the hon. member for Vancouver South it seems to me that there are being excluded from the operation of the bill one class of people who will be in greater jeopardy than some others who are included in it. I shall listen with great interest to the minister's subtantiation of this course.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The whole scheme of the bill is to protect property within the Dominion of Canada against damage resulting from attack, or measures taken for counter-attack. As hon. members have said, the moment one gets out of Canada and operates on the high seas, he is in an area of greater risk. It is also an area in which property may be insured at the present time through commercial channels. Marine insurance applies there. To import this class of business into inland or internal schemes of insurance would, unless we were to run grave risk with respect to the solvency of the fund, mean a considerably higher rate. It is for that reason, or a reason very much like it, that we exclude one risk to which I have referred within the dominion, namely, the risk of damage to standing trees. If we were to undertake the uncertain, perhaps very great, and possibly unascertainable liability which would be incident to placing insurance upon standing timber, we would imperil the scheme.
Ships on inland waters are covered because the risk to those ships from war is the same,
or practically the same, as the risk to buildings on the shore. In other words it is an internal risk. It is a risk which we are assuming to be equal throughout the country; that is the principle underlying the bill. It is also a risk, however, as to which a certain premium can be assigned, one which we believe would be fair for that class of risk. When we go outside, on the ocean, we are going into a most difficult and uncertain field. If we were to do that we would have to have two schemes, because in my judgment it would never do to lump ocean-going vessels, whether they were ferrying or trading vessels, with inland property. We are including property on the shores at the two ends of the dominion with property in the middle of the country. But we cannot bring too much into that class of insurance. I have repeatedly said that we do not aim to go into this business for the sake of making cheaper insurance available. If they can get insurance now, let them get it now. That is the general procedure we have followed.
A case can be made for the poor fisherman in his little boat. I do not know whether there is much likelihood of danger to that class of boat. But I do know very well that a great many of the vessels fishing on the seas are not owned by poor fishermen at all; they are owned by powerful and prosperous companies, who should be asked to take out insurance and pay for it, and who can get that insurance at the present time. If we put that class of craft into the bill we will make it much more risky for the government, and we will mix two classes of risk. Further, we will upset our principle, which is a sound one-that of not bringing in persons who can get insurance at the present time.
With regard to dealing with them separately, it is probably true that if there were any considerable or serious losses to fishermen the government would have to assume some responsibility. But we can do that by order in council at any time; we can do something appropriate under the circumstances. I do not know what we will do, because no case has been made. Nothing has been gone into in that regard, and it would have to be considered very carefully before we embarked upon a marine insurance scheme. I am prepared to give consideration to the point during the summer and see whether we should do anything in advance. We shall have to do something by order in council, in other lines, as I told the house when the bill was first introduced. We shall have to make some provision for compensation for personal injuries, and that would be done by order in council. On what basis action

War Risk Insurance

will be taken I cannot say at the present time, although a great deal of consideration has been given to the matter. There have not been any personal injuries to civilians in Canada due to enemy action.


George Alexander Cruickshank: When that is being considered, will the soldiers overseas have some consideration?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the hon. member talking about life insurance?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I thought the minister referred to injury to persons just now.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, well; The Pension Act makes most careful provision for soldiers. Any injury incurred during or attributable to service is pensionable. Widows' pensions and dependents' pensions are also provided, as the hon. member knows. That has been worked out over many years. Certainly if we do anything for civilians it will not surpass what we do for members of the armed forces, and probably will not be nearly as generous.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There is no reason why it should be.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; no one advocates that. The hon. member seemed to intimate that we would be doing something for civilians which we would not do for the soldiers.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sorry the minister misunderstood me.


Angus MacInnis: Usually I am impressed by the logic of the Minister of Finance's arguments. He may not be able to convince the hon. member for Fraser Valley, but he is nearly always able to convince me. However, he has not been able to do that this time. He said we could not include in this measure the fishing fleets on the east and west coasts because the risk would be too great. The fact is, however, that we are embarking on this whole scheme because the risk is too great for ordinary insurance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not too great for others to take on.


Angus MacInnis: I am not so sure of that. I am thinking particularly of the fisherman who owns his own boat. There are two classes of fishermen, the man who owns his own craft and the company that owns a great number of boats. These companies are usually able to insure. As I pointed out, this is not a case of boats on the high seas. These boats work in close to shore, sometimes in what is known as inland waters. Then for a considerable portion of the year they congregate, if that is the correct term to 
apply to boats, in the harbours where a bomb or two could do enormous damage. The minister referred to standing timber and stated that that should be excluded from the bill, but that argument does not apply to fishing boats. If he cannot include them in the present bill, he should give consideration to providing protection in some other way.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to bring out two points in connection with the minister's reply. He emphasized the fact that this war risk insurance bill was intended only to protect property within the Dominion of Canada. In connection with the insuring of boats, I think he has in mind those boats which go out from Nova Scotia to fish on the banks of Newfoundland. What we are referring to are the boats on the west coast which fish between the mainland and Vancouver island, or off the island, or in the mouths of the different rivers. Some of the larger boats may go out to the halibut banks, but the majority of the boats fish in Canadian waters and are therefore still within Canada. The men who own and operate them are entitled to the same protection as persons who have property on shore. I urge upon the minister that he go into this matter further, that he should not just ride roughshod over our submissions. This is a very serious situation. If these boats are not insured the result may be to cut down the amount of salmon that can be shipped overseas. A fisherman on lake Manitoba or on the great lakes can insure, and I cannot see the fairness in that position.
The minister has said that he will give consideration to this question through the summer and then perhaps an order in council will be brought down. That is not very satisfactory or helpful. Damage may occur at any minute; perhaps while we are debating the Japs may strike, and it is not fair that this matter should be shelved for months. If these men are to be helped in some other way, let there be no delay. I cannot emphasize too strongly the need for prompt action on the part of the government.


Alan Webster Neill: I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East when he says that he generally has great respect for the arguments of the Minister of Finance. I agree with him also when he says that he cannot now agree with the argument presented by the minister. It rather reminds me of the clever lawyer who was making the best he could of a bad case, but with not very great success. The judge finally said to him, "Mr. Smith, what are you here for?" The lawyer, realizing that

War Risk Insurance
his case was hopeless, replied, "Thirty guineas and five, my Lord, and dirt cheap at the price," and sat down.
I also see in this something of what I would term the sinister evidence of officialdom. We see this so often. When a bill is being prepared the minister says he wants certain things, but when it is being drawn up by the officials they quite often have a strong view as to the ease of carrying it out. They consider whether it is going to cause them trouble in defining what this or that may mean, and when the bill is brought down it is found to be framed along the lines of convenience of administration rather than anything else.
There have been cases on the west coast where the government stepped in and took boats from fishermen because of war needs. These boats would be worth perhaps $12,000 to $18,000, and they were taken because they were needed for patrol purposes. If anything should happen to one of those boats the owner would be paid because they have been simply chartered. These other fishermen who own their own boats have their all invested in them. They live by and on the boats. The minister talks now in very vague terms of doing something later on by order in council, but we should remember that to-day is the day of our salvation, to-morrow is something else. A fisherman who has his all in a little boat will not go out if he knows that his whole livelihood is likely to be endangered. He is not going to be comforted by the vague suggestion that perhaps something will be done by order in council.
I noted particularly two sentences used by the minister. He said that it would be bringing in too much expensive machinery or causing too great an expense and that the system, if carried out, would be "difficult, complicated and uncertain." There you have the crux of the whole thing. A moment ago I referred to the official point of view. The war is difficult, complicated and uncertain, and it is up to us to give the fishermen, both on the east and west coasts, a chance. In order to bring things to a head, I am going to move that paragraph (j) of section 2 be amended by inserting after the word "than" in line 20 the words "boats used exclusively for fishing or packing fish and." With this amendment the reservations in section 2 would not apply to fishing boats used exclusively in fishing or packing fish. This would not open the door very widely. None of these terribly complicated, uncertain and difficult things are going to happen if we take in these boats on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. How about the boats on the great lakes? I move this amendment in order to 44561-1804
test the feeling of the committee, and I know there is a feeling on all sides in its favour.


Thomas Vien: The clause as proposed to be amended would read:
(iii) ships, other than boats used exclusively for fishing or packing fish and vessels used solely-
And so forth.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That amendment, if accepted, would, in the event of loss, throw upon the fund supplied by the crown, being the property of the crown, an additional burden, and it is therefore, I submit, out of order. It is not merely technically out of order; it is really out of order. If amendments of this kind can be made at the instance of anybody but the government, we have abandoned our system of control of the public funds.


Alan Webster Neill: Subsection 2 of section 3
empowers the minister to determine the terms and conditions of any contract of insurance entered into under this bill. He would fix a rate for this insurance that would carry itself, as all insurance does.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a clause which gives a certain measure of free insurance.


Alan Webster Neill: But subsection 2 of section 3 says:
The minister may, subject to the provisions of this act or of any regulation, determine the terms and conditions upon which he will enter into any contract of insurance.
He will fix the premium at such a rate that the insurance will carry itself. Therefore the crown will not be out of pocket by including these people among those who can take out insurance. An insurance company always fixes the rate high enough to protect itself. No insurance company ever loses money.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would be utterly impossible for the crown to arrange the matter with any certainty. All we know is that this puts us in a position in which we are empowered at least, although it does not lead to the-crown assuming liability to cover a greatly extended field. I submit that since the amendment affects the public expenditure it is out of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not going to speak on the point of order, but notwithstanding the position which the minister has taken I suggest that he give consideration to the merits of the appeal which-has been made to him.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I will do that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: and I also can speak on behalf of the fishermen of the bay of Fundy, on the island of Grand Manan. There are no great fishing companies on the island. Every man owns his own boat and goes out into the turbulent waters of the bay of Fundy. The mouth of the bay of Fundy is the entrance of the channel to the city of Saint John, and submarines may be lurking there now. These fishermen go to their lobster traps extending miles and miles out into the deep sea. They are entitled to some protection. I am not going to extend the argument because the minister has heard it to the full on behalf of other localities. He understands the principle, and I hope he will give consideration to the merits of the case and include these boats in the bill. The fishermen would then feel that they would have some measure of protection while pursuing their calling.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the words added by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi are simply enabling; they do not compel the government to do anything. They do not .say that the government has to pay out any more money. The minister, as a matter of fact, would have the right of fixing a rate which is commensurate with the risk in connection with these boats. As the amendment is only *enabling, I submit that it is not out of order.


Alan Webster Neill: I would also point out that subsection 3 of section 3 reads as follows:
The minister may, in his absolute discretion, refuse to enter into a contract of insurance with any person.
There is his protection. Did you ever hear of an insurance company that lost money? If the government by this amendment were forced to take additional people into the scheme which they have already formulated, they would not lose money by it, because the minister has power under subsection 2 to determine the terms and conditions under which he will enter into any contract of insurance. The crown cannot lose money by it, because the rate will be fixed so high that the insurance will carry itself, as all insurance *does.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: On what ground, Mr. Chairman, did the minister submit that the Amendment was out of order?


Thomas Vien: The point of order is that by adding several other categories to paragraph (j) of section 2 the amendment would add to the charges on the public. That is the point of order, if I understood it *correctly.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.
JMr. R. B. Hanson.]


Thomas Vien: If any other hon. gentleman wishes to speak to the point of order, now is the time.


John Horne Blackmore: If the proposed change had been made by the banking and commerce committee, would it have been considered out of order?


Thomas Vien: That is a hypothetical question on which I cannot make a ruling.


Major James William Coldwell: May it not be just as well argued that if you include others within the insurance scheme, you collect from them premiums and therefore are increasing the revenues of the crown? When we are dealing with all kinds of insurance, and probably will be in the future, covering different classes of people who may come under various acts and receive various benefits, paying premiums or making contributions in order to secure the benefits, it seems to me that this is a ruling which ought to be well considered by the Chair before it is given. It can be just as well argued that we may increase the revenues of the crown by adding other persons or boats from which additional premiums will be collected.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In addition to what has been said, may I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the committee amended the bill by the insertion in paragraph (j) (iv) of the words "property on board any ships, other than such vessels aforesaid." This has been accepted, I understand, by the minister, and the committee on banking and commerce thus added to the burden of the crown. So that there are two sides to the story. The proposed amendment may increase the obligation of the crown, but the minister does not have to accept this insurance. On the other hand it may add to the revenues of the crown.


Thomas Vien: On the point of order, hon. gentlemen have spoken on the point of order raised by the hon. minister and also, particularly the leader of the opposition, on the question of expediency. The Chairman can deal only with the point of order, namely, whether the addition of a category to the cases covered by the proposed insurance scheme adds a charge on the public. It has been argued that, since subsection 3 of section 2 provides that the minister may, in his absolute discretion, refuse to enter into a contract of insurance with any person, the amendment does not necessarily entail an expenditure of money. In my opinion, however, by adding a category to those enumerated in the bill, we provide a potential

2S53
Income and Corporation Tax
expenditure of money and a possible charge on the public. The minister shall have the power to contract with persons not provided for in the scheme as submitted by the crown. I must therefore rule the amendment out of order.


Alan Webster Neill: Let us take a plebiscite on it.


John Horne Blackmore: If this amendment is to be ruled out of order, I believe it pretty well becomes incumbent-


Thomas Vien: I repeat, however, that the question of expediency is still open for discussion.


John Horne Blackmore: It is the question of expediency to which I wish to speak. You have already ruled it out of order. I would urge on the minister that he consider the expediency of this measure. As the bill stands at the present time, it is a rich man's bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My dear friend, do not talk
that way.


John Horne Blackmore: From beginning to end the bill is so framed that the great majority of the really poor people who desperately need insurance in case anything goes wrong will not get it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The only people that get free coverage are poor people. There is free coverage for all people in Canada who own property up to a certain amount. They pay no premiums, nevertheless they get protection.


John Horne Blackmore: Not below $50.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is a small protection
against a multiplicity of little claims. I cannot help thinking about what is going on in this war in various parts of the world- Russia, China and in other areas. I am sure that complete coverage against all the risks of war is impossible. Men are getting maimed and killed and all that sort of thing, and nothing in the world can make these things up to them. This highly meticulous attempt to protect every civilian down to the last cent is something which it is impossible to carry out. Do not let us lose our sense of proportion in this matter. This is a means by which, apart from a few dollars at the lower end of the scale, we protect all poor people without any premium, and I would ask my hon. friend not to embark upon these charges, that certain legislation is rich man's legislation, without giving more consideration to his words.


John Horne Blackmore: It is going to be
necessary, if the bill remains as it is, for me
to prefer that charge and to pursue it with considerable attention.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not propose to
raise the question of the $50 limit, which of course comes up under a later clause. Meanwhile I believe that this matter of insuring small fishing boats falls within a class analogous to that of small householders to whom a $50 damage may be a calamity. If that is the case, the minister should make some provision in this bill to protect people whose little all is bound up probably in a very small fishing boat or in a very small home; for there is no obvious provision in the bill for the protection of the many thousands of poor people who constitute so large a percentage of our population. I have characterized the bill as a rich man's bill-


James Lorimer Ilsley: 1 will let that charge go'
now. I shall never convince my hon. friend. Anyone who understands the bill will not say that about it.


John Horne Blackmore: Except the poor man, one who has been a poor man. He will understand.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The senate is waiting for
certain amendments to be concurred in, and I shall have to move this bill out of committee. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



INCOME AND CORPORATION TAX


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 16, to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements with the governments of the provinces of Canada respecting the vacation by the provinces of the personal income and corporation tax fields for the duration of the war, and Bill No. 17, to provide for the payment of additional subsidies to the maritime provinces.
He said: These amendments do not change the substance in any way. They are merely verbal. They improve the language and in one case make slightly clearer the intention of everyone. I am prepared to accept them. The amendment to Bill 17, which is the bill relating to subsidies to the maritime provinces, is that on page 2, lines 16 and 17, for the
2S54
Income and Corporation Tax
[Stage Direction]
words "of the said provinces," we substitute the words "such province." The proviso will then read:
Provided the said subsidies shall not be payable to such province while an agreement under the provisions of the Dominion-Provincial Taxation Agreement Act, 1942, remains in force with respect to such province.
The senate amendment to Bill No. 16 is as follows:
On page 2, line 41, between the words "pay" and "to" insert the words "with respect to each year of the term of the agreement".
And on page 2, line 42, between the words "receipts" and "from" insert the words "during the said year".
This makes it clearer, that the amount payable under the gasoline guarantee will be an amount related to the deficiency in each year, year by year. Otherwise the section as originally drafted might have been interpreted as meaning that the guarantee related to a longer period than a year.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This makes the gasoline guarantee more definite?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Makes it more definite; simply carries out the intention.


Thomas Langton Church: Since the minister hinted on Monday or Tuesday about increasing the income tax, an impossibility, has that been considered in connection with Bill No. 17 and allowance made accordingly to the provinces?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not say that the income tax was going to be increased, nor did I use any words intended to give the public that idea. That is a matter as to which I naturally wish to say nothing, have said nothing and will not say anything until the budget is brought down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 56, to make provision with respect to insurance of property against war risks and the payment of compensation for war damage-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 2-paragraph (j).
Alan Webster Neill: We hear a great deal these days about equality of sacrifice. Let us apply it to this bill. If our fishermen on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts are to go out and risk their lives and all they own and hope to make a living by, without compensation, for
(Mr. Ilsley.]
the sake of getting fish for our own and the British market, then let us go the whole hog and make it right across. I do not see any reason why this provision should not apply on the great lakes. I therefore move to strike out subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (,j) of section 2, beginning at line 20 of the bill. Then we shall all be on a common footing.


Thomas Vien: I must give the same ruling on this amendment. Does any hon. member desire to speak on the point of order?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No one has raised a point of order yet.


Thomas Vien: The point of order is raised by the Chair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the Chairman be good enough to state the point of order?


Thomas Vien: The point of order is that by striking out subparagraph (iii) of subsection (j) which excludes from the bill a whole category, the amendment includes them within the application in the bill. The result, therefore, is to make the bill cover a larger enumeration of insurable property.


Alan Webster Neill: This is a good illustration of what I said earlier in the afternoon, that this bill has been very sloppily drawn. Many hon. members cannot understand what it means, and I venture to suggest that even the Chairman has misinterpreted it. He says that the amendment removes from the exemption a number of classes of insurable property. I wish he would mention what classes are exempted, because these other things are the very opposite. "Ships, other than vessels used solely in docks," are exempted now, and I want to leave out the exemption so that it will not apply to them. I am relieving the government of some expenditure.


Thomas Vien: Paragraph (j) reads:
"Property" . . . shall not include . . .


Alan Webster Neill: But the Chairman has omitted the words "other than" which turns the whole thing roundabout: "shall not include vessels other than". You exclude certain things. It is restricting the insurability.


Thomas Vien: Ships are excluded, but there is an exception to the exception. Ships outside of those that are in the exception to subparagraph (iii), ships generally, were excluded from the bill. By dropping subparagraph (iii) you include all ships that were excluded.


Alan Webster Neill: I hope I am amenable. If the Chairman takes that view I will withdraw

War Risk Insurance
the amendment and move another: leave the word "ships" in and strike out the rest of the words. That puts us all, Jew and Gentile, maritimes, great lakes and British Columbia, on a common level of degradation.


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. gentleman give the wording of his amendment?


Alan Webster Neill: To strike out all the words after the word "ships" in line 20 down to the end of the paragraph.


Thomas Vien: That subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (j) be amended by striking out all the words after the word "ships" in line 20, so that subparagraph (iii) will contain only the word "ships"?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. That is in order, is it
not?


Thomas Vien: I think it is.


Douglas King Hazen: If all those words are struck out, a great many objects are not going to be insured that otherwise would come within the bill, and I do not think we want that to happen. I understand the minister to say that he would consider the first amendment suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Douglas King Hazen: If I might offer another suggestion it would be that the words "territorial waters" be inserted in line 21 of paragraph (j) (iii) together with the words "inland waters". Then the small fishing boats in which I am interested would be protected.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I rather agree with the last speaker. I do not think that just because you cannot get what you happen to want you should take anything away from anyone else. It seems to me that if there is any chance at all of fishing boats getting any protection it will be because somebody else has somewhat similar protection. If we take out of this bill the road leading half way to where we want to go we abolish our only chance, and there never will be any opportunity for fishing boats to be insured. I think we should leave it as it is now, at least covering boats in inland waters, and then ask for more. Apparently we cannot get any more to-day, but I am hoping that some day we shall get this provision extended.


Alan Webster Neill: If I may ask a question, did Oliver Twist get any more by asking for it?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Well, if we are going to follow Oliver Twist in our procedure in this house, at least he took what they gave him. 1 am sincere about this; if we are going to abolish what is offered here, on the principle
of equality of sacrifice and "if I can't get anything, you can't get it either," I think that is all wrong. I believe we ought to leave the bill as it is and come back another time with something which will extend what is provided here. So I hope this amendment does not pass.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I really do not think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni wants this amendment to pass in the form he suggests. He moved it out of resentment, shall I say, at the inflexibility of the minister's mind toward what he wants to get into the bill. It may be that perhaps this is the proper tactic to pursue, but really I would not want to support the present amendment. I urge upon the minister, however, that before >
this bill is through committee he should give consideration to insuring fishermen's boats. It would not be a great risk to assume. The amount of capital involved cannot be very great, and he could protect himself by adequate premiums. Surely there must be some yardstick with which to measure. In this bill the government are giving some protection to people of limited means in other walks of life. Can they not do it for the fishermen? I beg the minister to do this. I do not agree with the hon. member, for Lethbridge that this is a rich man's bill. It is a moderate attempt to do something for all classes who may be affected by war risk. In their study of this bill hon. gentlemen have discovered that fishermen are left out, and they are making a case for the fishermen. I think they have made a good case, and I do not believe the minister has yet dealt with the concrete proposal in an adequate way. It is true that he has made the general statement that this is an experimental piece of business, and all that sort of thing, but I suggest that he become a little more realistic and give effect to what has been asked by hon. members with respect to fishermen, who need this protection.
The fishermen at the mouth of the bay of Fundy need this protection. The fishermen of the constituency of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare need it. I know the fishermen in the bay of Fundy take their large boats and go away down the bay, miles away from land. These have to be good, staunch, sturdy boats. I have watched them on the inland waters of the Pacific coast. They are a pretty substantial investment. These fishing boats are not always paid for. They represent the whole stake of the fishermen. Give them a little protection. I plead with the minister that he do that, and I think he ought to do it.
Wnr Risk Insurance


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is there not a sound ground for distinction between ocean-going shipping and these deep-sea fishing boats, inasmuch as ocean-going ships can set their freight rates according to the risk involved and according to the premiums they have to pay? In other words, ocean freights are not governed by the price-ceiling regulations of our country; and though I am not yet sure of the fact, I believe the catch of the coastal fishermen is subject to the price ceiling. If insurance rates for protection against war damage rise substantially, then it will become impossible for the fishermen to operate. If they do suffer loss and are unable to replace their boats or recoup themselves financial^', they cannot be expected to go out and fish. The government want to see the greatest possible amount of fish caught by the deep-sea fishermen, because we have the canneries available and we are exporting as much of this fish as possible. Therefore the government will certainly find itself in the position of having to keep this industry going if it does suffer from enemy action. In other words, to use the vernacular, the baby is on the doorstep of the government, and the question is how they intend to provide for it. They can either bring the coastal fishermen under the bill or wait until some of them are blitzed. Then the government will have to take measures to replace the ships in order to get the raw material for our canneries and carry on our war effort.


Grote Stirling: I am interested in what the minister has to say to the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John-Albert that the words "territorial waters" be included. In the case of British Columbia I think I am right in saying that if you drew a line from the west coast of the Queen Charlotte islands outside Vancouver island to the mouth of the strait of Juan de Fuca, you would include therein practically all the commercial fishing that is done.


Mr. MAYHEW:: I should like to add my voice in support of the arguments that have been advanced here on behalf of the fishermen. In presenting this bill the minister said that it was for the purpose of insuring those who were unable to get insurance at the present time. In the case of the fishermen, they can get insurance; but the rate is so high as to be practically prohibitive, running from 12 to 30 per cent a year. That is not insurance at all, and I think if it is at all possible they should be included, and included now. Some hon. members said a little while ago that this measure could be held over for the summer. We are in hopes that before the

year is passed there will not be any necessity for any such insurance. It is very important that the fishermen go out now in as large numbers as possible, and with as little worry as possible about what is going to happen. On these men to a large extent depends the procuring of food for our own people and people overseas, and we should give these fishermen every encouragement. The matter should not be left dragging for months, just when we are in the real fishing season, particularly on the Pacific coast.
I urge the minister to consider what has been said, and to have an amendment brought in which would include the fishermen. Most of them do not go outside certain areas. Some of them go as far as Seattle, but they do not operate a general commercial business. They simply catch their haul of fish, bring it to the market, go out and get another haul and repeat the performance. There is not the same complication connected with the insuring of a fisherman's boat as there is with the insuring of a merchant vessel. I plead with the minister to give this matter his sympathetic and favourable consideration.


Mr. McGARRY:: I should like to associate myself with the leader of the opposition in advocating the extension of this insurance scheme to the fishermen. As the last speaker has pointed out, the fisherman is one of our most important producers. In many instances the loss of a boat through enemy action means the loss of everything, as regards producing not only for the war effort but for the maintenance of the fisherman's own domestic needs. I would plead with the minister to give this matter serious consideration, and have this insurance scheme applied to the fishermen.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the committee is in great earnest about this matter we shall have practically to redraft the bill, because it is impossible to incorporate in it the suggestion which has been made. If it were done we would have only a very bad product. It seems to me that if the fishermen's boats were destroyed by enemy action, the normal procedure would be for the government to compensate them in some way. If we try to graft a scheme like this onto this bill, there will be some limited free coverage which may not be at all adequate. Certainly the bill has not been prepared in a manner which contemplates compensation of that kind. Payment for chattels has relation to chattels of a householder, and whether that could be made to apply to a boat, I cannot say. I do not think it would be applicable.

War Risk Insurance
I do not believe hon. members have considered what would be involved in incorporating in this bill what has been suggested. If it is desired by hon. members to give the fisherman no compensation unless he pays a premium, the bill could be drafted along that line. But I do not think hon. members really realize what they are asking. On the ocean we find large and small ships, some of which are operated by prosperous shipping companies which carry insurance on those ships, and some of which are not. Before we enter into the insuring of ocean boats I think we had better depart to another measure, instead of following this one.
Hon. members may find that by amending this bill they will hurt rather than help the fishermen.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has spoken about free coverage. Does he mean the $200 referred to in section 8?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, and the $800 in the case of a householder.


Howard Charles Green: That would not cover a fishing boat, would it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know. I thought hon. members wanted that scale to apply. It may not be applicable at all. It was not considered as being applicable because this is a scheme which is to apply to land. We cannot insure everybody under this measure. We cannot, for instance, insure the civilian against personal injury, and this scheme is adapted to a class of risk altogether different from marine risks.
The government must be trusted to a certain extent to assume its responsibilities in regard to these matters. This is a plan under which we hope to operate a solvent and successful insurance scheme, and it has been demanded by people throughout the dominion. We hope to receive premiums from persons in the interior, and we are spreading the risk over. But it is a scheme adapted and worked out to apply to property in Canada, not on the ocean-whether we refer to small or large boats.
Just to pour these fishing boats into the measure must not be done without first giving the matter a great deal of consideration, and I would ask the committee to leave it to the government to meet the situation in a different way.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia, who has suggested to the minister that me consideration be given to the fishermen.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member is about two hours late; the suggestion was first made by the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Olof Hanson: What arrangements have been made in the United States with respect to their fishing fleet? We have been asked to produce food, and I learn from the press that the United States government has suggested that the halibut fishing fleet, which operates on the deep sea, should try to conduct its operations within a specified time, because of disruption on the Pacific coast.
I feel justified in asking for some consideration for our Canadian fishermen. I believe they should be allowed to insure against war risk, if they pay a premium. Before excluding the fishermen I suggest that the minister give the matter careful consideration. Our fishing fleet is absolutely necessary in the production of foodstuffs, and should be given consideration equal to those established inland.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not appreciate the difficulty the minister has attempted to describe to the committee. We are insuring certain classes of ships in certain circumstances. All we now ask is that fishing boats in territorial waters be included. There is a principle involved, and to envelop that principle within the four walls of this measure would not seem to present any tremendous difficulty. If there are diffiiculties, then may I point out that the minister has plenty of competent help to do the work. Perhaps before the bill goes through committee he might refer it to his officials to see what can be done.
I do not believe the minister is actually opposing the principle involved in the application of this measure to fishermen. What he is trying to show' is that it would complicate the mechanism of the measure. I should not think that that should stand in the way. Section 4 reads:
The minister may, under this act, establish one or more schemes of insurance as he sees fit.
If that will complicate the drafting of the bill, could the minister not give an undertaking that he will set up a scheme for free insurance or some other type of insurance of fishermen's boats? The nation will be ready to bear the cost of anything like that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Minister of Fisheries tells me that if one of these boats is sunk by enemy action, the owner would be compensated in full out of enemy property, to the extent that we may have enemy property in our hands.

War Risk Insurance


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know that that is true and I should like to have the citation. In the last war applications were made to the dominion for payments out of that fund, and these men might have to wait ten years before they would receive recompense. There was one celebrated case in the last war which I think is known to all, and hundreds of cases flash through one's mind. I know of one bona fide case which took years to get settled. The government of the day and the succeeding government of my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, had a reparations officer working for years on these claims. If the fishermen are to have to wait for that, we may as well wipe the suggestion off the slate.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: I cannot see the danger which the minister seems to see in including these fishermen's boats in this bill. I cannot see the difference between a boat that operates within the coastal waters in a Canadian port and a ferry operating within a harbour from point to point. I do not see why we could not accept this greater risk at the same premium. I take it that we are ready to insure factories in Halifax or Vancouver at the same rate as factories in the inland towns or villages, and it seems to me that we have just as much right to insure boats that operate in territorial waters from a Canadian port as we have to insure one that operates on lake Ontario or in the river St. Lawrence. I cannot see why we should discriminate or where, by including these fishing [DOT]'raft, we are throwing such a great burden upon the country. We will insure a ferry that operates between points in the harbour of Halifax or the harbour of Vancouver, but we will not insure a fisherman's boat that goes two miles off the coast. The fisherman may be running a greater risk, but he is. doing that for all the people of Canada and all the people of the empire. The people of Canada and the people of the empire have a right to help bear the cost of that greater risk.


Olof Hanson: I should like to have an answer to my question about the insuring of deep-sea fishermen's boats.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My information is that the scheme in that connection is not completed. It does not cover their fishing fleets so far, but whether it will eventually, I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am afraid my suggestion with respect to section 4 is not a good one. As I now understand that section the minister could not establish any scheme outside the powers conferred upon him by the bill. Consequently I shall have to withdraw
[Mr. Ilsley.)
my previous suggestion. I am going to ask the minister fo give consideration to this matter. It is the will of the people as represented here. There has not been anyone who has said anything against it, and surely the minister ought to give effect to this if it is humanly possible.


Mr. GRAYDON:: I come from central
Canada and therefore have no direct connection with the industry under consideration, but I should like to refer to two matters which were emphasized by the minister. The first was the question of the solvency of this fund. I think it must be said in all fairness that it would be difficult to place the fund upon a definite actuarial basis, having in mind the fact, as was discussed during the second reading of the bill, that this is an experimental bill. We have never before had the need in Canada of a comprehensive scheme of this kind. When the minister talks about solvency I presume he means that the scheme must be actuarially sound in principle. I am quite certain that the inclusion of these fishermen could not be regarded as interfering with the general soundness of the principle from an actuarial point of view, and I think the minister's argument with respect to that falls to the ground.
If this war risk insurance is to be a plan whereby people are to be compensated when they cannot possibly get insurance through the ordinary channels, then surely the fishermen of the maritimes and the Pacific coast should be included. I was not impressed with the minister's argument with respect to reparations. To my knowledge there is no type of war damage that is not covered by reparations if you can get reparations. But it seems to me that by the time a claim was paid, the fisherman's estate would be collecting rather than the fisherman. Coming from central Canada I should like to add my voice to those which have been heard already with respect to this point.


Thomas Langton Church: The whole bill will make
a good fishing story for some anglers' meeting.


Mr. McNEVIN:: I believe the people of
Canada are most anxious to give every possible protection to the fishermen and their boats, but an insurance expert who appeared before the banking and commerce committee made it abundantly clear that the provisions of this bill were not suitable to take care properly of the risks involved in insuring these fishermen's boats. For that reason I would hesitate to support the amendment because I believe that the gentleman who appeared before the committee knows more about the intricacies of insurance law and

War Appropriation-W ar Services
the general set-up than perhaps any hon. member of this committee. I think we should be guided by his advice in the matter. If he has made it abundantly clear that this bill could not properly take care of the situation, that it should be taken care of in some other way, then it seems to me that that should settle the matter.


Douglas King Hazen: He did not make it abundantly clear to me. He did not deal with fishermen's boats at all; he dealt with ships that go out on the high seas. Those ships are run by the fishing companies, and I take exception to the statement of the hon. member that the insurance expert dealt with fishermen's boats.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: The whole matter was
fully discussed in committee.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor-General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name royal assent to the following bills:
An act to repeal the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act.
An act respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
An act to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
An act respecting the Toronto harbour commissioners.
An act to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements with the governments of the provinces of Canada respecting the vacation by the provinces of personal income and corporation tax fields for the duration of the war.
An act to provide for the payment of additional subsidies to the maritime provinces.
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1943.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 56, to make provision with respect to insurance of property against war risks and the payment of compensation for war damage-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Vien in the Chair.
44561-18H
James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again. I shall not be able to go on again with this bill to-night.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 21, 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.
Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):: When I was before the committee last on May 18 I stated that I wished to deal with certain observations which the leader of the opposition had made with regard to the regulations, when he spoke on March 25. He voiced certain criticisms of the regulations, and at that time I indicated that any constructive suggestions would be cordially welcomed. A week ago Monday I indicated that I did not wish to deal, in the absence of the leader of the opposition, with the subjects that he had raised. There are one or two observations that I should like to make with regard to the criticisms which he made.
The first one with which I shall deal has to do with the reserve army. The first suggestion made by the leader of the opposition appears at the bottom of page 1638 of Hansard. He said:
That men of the trainee ages who were on the strength of a reserve unit on August 15, 1940, have not been made liable for service in Canada for the duration if they have been attending parades of their reserve units.
Then he went on to say:
I understand-the minister may correct me- that this position is still recognized; and if this excuse still obtains, the position should be changed. It is not good enough.
To a certain extent I agree with the leader of the opposition in the observations he has made. There are certain anomalies existing with regard to the particular regulation that is involved. The subject is dealt with by section 13 of the regulations. This section provides in effect that members in good standing of the reserve units who would otherwise be subject to the regulations are not called out by the divisional registrars unless or until the representative of the district officer com-

War Appropriation-War Services
manding reports that they are not performing their training in a manner satisfactory to the military authorities. The section in the regulations was enacted with the knowledge and approval of the Department of National Defence, and it has been retained in the regulations in order to enable the Department of National War Services to call out for training and service for the duration of the war men who, although discharged from the air force or the navy because of higher medical standards, are medically fit for the army. Consideration is being given to the question of how best to deal with the men who are at present in the reserve army and therefore excused, while their training is satisfactory in the reserve army, from call under the regulations. It has been suggested that these men should be pooled with other men in the callable ages and made subject to call in the ordinary way. I assure my hon. friend that the subject is under review at the present time between the Department of National Defence and the Department of National War Services.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister agrees that the position is unsatisfactory.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I indicated that at the
outset. There exist at present some anomalies and some inequities which I think are capable of adjustment.
The next subject to which the leader of the opposition referred is that of university and college students-section 17 of the regulations. This section also I think calls for revision. There are a number of subsections in section 17 which are no longer really applicable; that is, they are spent subsections, because they were enacted to meet a situation that no longer exists. Several of the subsections of section 17 relate to the state of affairs that was in existence when men were called up for only thirty days. May I say, however, with regard to section 17 generally that this section of the regulations was the result of a conference with the universities held on February 24, 1941, and there were also very full discussions with the Department of National Defence. The general basis for section 17 of the regulations is that there is a need for educated men. At present the government has found it necessary to make financial provision for certain kinds of students, namely, medical students. There is also a growing need of chemists and engineers both for army purposes and for war industries. With regard to students of that type it may become necessary to make some special provision, similar in principle to the arrangements that were made in respect of medical students.
{Mr. Thorson.]
The whole subject of students was discussed at the conference of chairmen and registrars of the various administrative divisions, held on April 23, 24, and 25, at which it was recognized that the regulations with regard to students should be revised. At that time it was suggested that the whole subject should be studied, and a further conference held with the universities and the departments having a special interest in students, which conference was held here in Ottawa on May 11. At that time it was indicated by the various departments, such as the Department of Labour, the national research council, the Department of Munitions and Supply and the departments of defence, army, navy and air, what their requirements likely would be in the matter of graduates from the universities. At this conference the universities were represented, together with the three defence departments,, the Department of Munitions and Supply, the Department of Labour, the bureau of wartime technical personnel, the national research council, and others. All had their representatives there. The director of national selective service was likewise in attendance. I think I may assure the committee that the regulations will be revised in the light of the existing situation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With
respect to points 1 and 2 that I mentioned, what department takes the initiative? Is it my hon. friend's department, or the Department of National Defence?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The chairman of the conference I mentioned was my associate deputy minister, Major-General LaFleche, and the Department of National War Services will take the initiative in the matter.
I indicated earlier in the course of my appearance before the committee that I intended to strike a departmental committee to revise the regulations from start to finish. I invited suggestions from members of the house as to how the regulations could be amended in order to make them more workable and better adapted to the purposes for which they were devised. I propose to set up this departmental committee immediately after this debate is concluded and place before it the observations made at the general conference of chairmen and registrars of the divisions; the representations made at the conference of university heads and departments which I mentioned a moment ago, and the various observations made by members of parliament during the course of this debate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister leaves that feature of it-

2S61
War Appropriation-War Services


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have not finished with
it yet.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -I should like to say a word on the revision of the regulations, if the minister will pardon me. When the Military Service Act of 1917 was brought down, the plan, the modus operandi, the method by which the draft was'to take place, was submitted to parliament, where it underwent thorough revision by the representatives of the people. Does the minister not think that is the democratic way in which this should be done? I suggest to him that the methods by which men shall be drafted into the army under a compulsory system, such as is now' in force in this country to a limited degree, could and should be brought into the House of Commons, where the representatives of the people could have something to say about these regulations; how they shall be prepared; how they shall be put into effect, and be given a chance to criticize their operation.
What happens now? A departmental committee, as the minister has indicated, drafts a regulation, wdiich is adopted by order in council and becomes an accomplished fact before we know anything about it. Take this vexed question of farmers' sons. Under the regulations as adopted by order in council, until a comparatively recent date it was impossible to get anything in the way of exemption for a farmer's son.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I used the word "exemption" advisedly. It was possible to get a postponement for a limited period of time, and perhaps several postponements, but anything in the nature of a complete exemption was impossible. I illustrate that by the case of a young man who was an only son, whose father had died, who was milking thirty cow's, and who was called up in the draft. That was in the days of the thirty-day training period. He and his mother came to see me. I explained that he could get a postponement and probably a certain number of postponements, but that he could not get indefinite postponement. I advised him, if he could possibly hire anyone to do the work, to take his thirty-day training in the winter season rather than depend on getting further postponements later on. He took his training. I do not know whether he has been called up again, but that is the case of a boy who was producing food of high quality and value. If he had been called up under the present draft system, his mother would have had to simply fold up; she could not
possibly carry on. That was one of the iniquities of a system adopted secretly by order in council, without the representatives of the people having a single word to say about it.
That system is wrong. Any regulations having to do with the drafting of men ought to be brought by the administration to parliament. Let parliament take the responsibility; let parliament pass upon such regulations. The whole theory of doing these things by order in council is wrong. I put myself in the judgment of members of this house if I am not right in that statement, and: whether in their secret hearts they will not support me in that position. I am sure I am right about this. I am as anxious to see a complete, allout war effort as any man in this house, and I have been consistent in that regard right along. But I realize that we cannot take every man for the army. Every man should go to his place, and his place is conditioned by circumstances. But to say that a group of officers or officials here in Ottawa can sit round a table and frame a system of regulations, and that we cannot do that here in this house-well, it is just common nonsense; that is all. More than that, there is a great principle at stake here. The drafting of men for military service is a very important operation, which ought not to be left in the hands of a group of officials who are not responsible to the people. That is a sound principle I am laying down. It must and should be-done in a democratic country like Canada under a system whereby these regulations before they become law shall be drafted as the basis of discussion, and brought before parliament.
What happened in 1917? They were brought before parliament in that year; and if hon. members will look at Hansard for those days they will see that those regulations were-debated and revised and improved, and that many valuable suggestions came from the membership of the House of Commons before the regulations were finally put into operation. That is the course I ask this government to* pursue, not only in the revision of regulations, as they stand to-day, but in any future-regulations which may be enacted as the result of legislation at present pending before this house.
I put it up to the House of Commons tonight, that this drafting of regulations for the conscription of man-power by the government of this country-and we have conscription by this government; not quite full yet, but that will come-should be done by a democratic body, like the House of Commons, and should not be done in the secrecy either

War Appropriation-War Services
of a caucus or of cabinet council. I defy anybody successfully to combat that theory. So far as I am concerned I want these regulations, before they have the force of law, to be submitted to the House of Commons for discussion; and we will look into them, even if it takes the whole summer to do it. We will very soon see that something like justice is done to all classes in the community, and that there will be equality in service, so far as manpower is concerned. I do not think we can get the same measure of equality if this sort of thing is done secretly by order in council; and I object to such a method.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to support the leader of the opposition in what he has just said. The last time the minister was before the committee we had a very long discussion regarding the regulations, and an interpretation of the Prime Minister's remarks, I believe of March 24, and of the order in council of March 21. Since then I have gone over Hansard very carefully, and I must confess I am at a loss to understand exactly what the position is, and what these regulations mean.
I am more confused because the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) speaking in French in this chamber, and therefore not followed by some of us who have only a slight knowledge of the French language, stated that he had with him what he called a communique given by the minister on April 17; and at that time the hon. member quoted from the French text. The translation appears at page 2506 of Hansard, and I should like to place it on record. It is as follows:
When the applicant has shown that he is a person wholly or mainly employed in agriculture within the meaning of the amended regulations, it is mandatory upon the board, subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, to grant the postponement order. Furthermore, the postponement order is until further notice and it constitutes an allocation of the applicant to agriculture rather than to military service.


Grote Stirling: Who signed that?


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Temiscouata said that he was quoting from a communique issued by the minister on April 17.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The Minister of National War Services?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. I shall ask the minister in a moment or two to put that *communique in English on Hansard.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is on Hansard, in full.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The first day I appeared before the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: I was not able to find it, and I read Hansard carefully.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: May 11.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was not the first day.


Major James William Coldwell: In any event, it escaped my notice. I read Hansard fairly carefully, and I certainly read the debates of the day to which I have reference, May 18.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I would refer the hon. member to page 2306.


Major James William Coldwell: I shall look it up later. I say, however, that it is at variance with the practice which has been followed in other parts of Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan. I gave the minister the other day the facts concerning a case about which I knew nothing more than had been told to me-and which, if wrong, makes no difference to the argument. This was the case of a young man farming his own piece of land. His father was ill, and the young man was assisting his father to farm that land, with the stock thereon. He, like the young man the leader of the opposition advised, took his thirty days of training a year ago last January. He has been recalled, has applied for postponement, and has been refused. That, I suggest, is the practice that is being largely followed in Saskatchewan.
The view the minister gave the house the other afternoon certainly was that if a young man were wholly engaged in agriculture-like the young man to whom the leader of the opposition referred, and the one to whom I have just referred-it was mandatory that he be excused from military service. I think all hon. members in the chamber, with very few exceptions, agree that if we are going to have selective service-and I want selective service of more than man-power; I want selective service of industry and wealth as well-it should be on a basis which is just, fair and reasonable. As at present carried out it is none of these things.
I remember very well taking up cases of a different type during the winter with the minister, and hearing the deputy minister say during a discussion as to what seemed to be reasonable, "The military authorities won't allow this; they won't agree to it." I said to the minister at the time, "Who is governing this country, the elected government or the military authorities?" In war time we have to give the military authorities a great deal of power; they ought to have it-but not power of this sort. The decision as to

War Appropriation-War Services
whether we are going to compel men to surrender their lives or their property in the interests of this dominion and of our war effort with the united nations is not the responsibility of the military authorities; it is the responsibility of this parliament. And I agree that under no circumstances should the government take unto itself powers that ought to lie in this chamber.
When we are dealing with the futures of the young men of this nation, this is the place where the decision should be taken, to the very last degree. I want to try, if I can, to understand exactly what these regulations are. If I may say so, in kindness to the minister, 1 wish he would give us a short and pithy statement. Let him tell us what he means, in a few words; because a long speech with all the "ands" and "ifs" and considerations-


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the repetitions.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Yes, the repetitions-is
confusing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the
limitations.


Leslie Gordon Bell: There is a difficulty I find sometimes in following the arguments of a man with a long legal training-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And with a regard for
precision.


Major James William Coldwell: -and the minister is a lawyer with a high reputation. It has struck me sometimes that in the teaching of law it is perhaps necessary to give both aspects of a question to such an extent that in an endeavour to balance up the two sides the teacher cannot arrive at a decision as to what he really means himself. I ask the Minister of National War Services to depart from the position of teacher of law and to give us a clear and pithy statement as to exactly what these regulations mean in relation to the matters to which the leader of the opposition and I have referred.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: For three whole days I have endeavoured to make a brief statement about the regulations. I get up to a certain point, and then speeches, much longer than any I have made, are made on both sides of the chamber. The discussion wanders off-I say that with respect-into individual cases where only one person knows the facts. I do not know the facts, and therefore I am not able to deal with a particular case. As I have pointed out again and again, these individual cases must be dealt with in the light of all the facts relating to them.


Major James William Coldwell: Treat them as hypothetical cases.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There is no such thing as a hypothetical case.


Major James William Coldwell: Coming from a lawyer that is interesting.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is all very well to speak of lawyers, but I have a regard for precision and I will not attempt to make a synopsis of lengthy regulations and condense them into one or two sentences, because it cannot be done. The cases that come before the boards are based on certain facts. We have set up a system of judicial boards, thirteen in number, each one of which is headed by a superior court judge or a judge of another court in the province where the major portion of the administrative division is located in order to deal with the facts of particular cases. They consider applications for postponement that are made and deal with the facts of particular cases. Without having a knowledge of the facts I am not going to attempt to set myself up in judgment against the boards. I think it is a great pity that so much of the time of the committee has been taken up with the discussion of individual cases where the only person who has any knowledge of the facts is the person putting forward the individual case. The facts in one case may be quite different from the facts in another and may result in a different determination by the judicial board which has been set up for the purpose of dealing with the facts of each case. I commenced this evening to attempt to deal with students, and I am entirely in the hands of the committee as to whether I shall go on with students or go back to farmers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we had better go on with students.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think we had better go on with students. I spent practically two whole days, Monday, May 11, and Monday. May 18, in dealing with persons who are wholly or mainly employed in agriculture. The press release to which my hon. friend has referred was set out in full in Hansard of Monday, May 11. I think it sets out with precision the policy of the government with regard to persons wholly or mainly employed in agriculture.


Major James William Coldwell: I am sorry that I overlooked that. May I ask if it has been sent out to the boards?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: This was sent out to all members of parliament and to every administrative board. Furthermore, it was the subject of a full and complete discussion at the conference of chairmen and registrars of the various boards and administrative divisions.

War Appropriation-War Services


Leslie Gordon Bell: Is the minister sure that all the chairmen of the boards understood what it meant?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: How am I to answer that
question?


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Did it result in any change of policy in the different divisions?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think when the returns for the first and second calls, in respect of which the change in policy was applicable, are received, there will be a clear demonstration of that.


Mr. FLEMING:: Would the minister permit a question?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I intend to continue with the subject of students, the matter which I set out to deal with this evening. Some question was raised by the leader of the opposition as to whether students could escape from military training. A number of points have been dealt with by him, as will appear on page 1638 of Hansard. In order to come within the provisions of section 17 of the regulations a student must be a member in good standing of a Canadian officers training corps unit in his university, or be a member of an auxiliary training unit in the university. I may say that this arrangement which permits a student to be excused from military training has the approval of the Department of National Defence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Must they be full-time students?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: May I deal later on with the question of full-time students? That was the second point dealt with. The regulations dealing with the Canadian officers training corps are regulations of the Department of National Defence. The student should be a successful student. If he complies with the conditions he gets a postponement of his military training. May I deal briefly with the other point raised by the leader of the opposition?


Grote Stirling: Before leaving that point would the minister mind dealing with the last words of section 17?-because they seem to me to leave a possible loophole through which students who have lived up to the other conditions may still be called. This section provides that unless and until other men of the same age class who were called for and who carried out the period of thirty days training ordained in the same proclamation are called for such longer period, and so on. Many of these men have been called up and I should like to know if university students have been called up also.
[Mr. Thoraon.)


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: If they are in the same class as other thirty-day men. Not all the thirty-day men have been called yet.


Grote Stirling: Not all, but in certain classes they have been called.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: With regard to the thirty-day men, persons who did their thirty days training are called up in the name of the Department of National Defence, and for the Department of National Defence, because they are all members of the reserve army. We call them up only upon requisition by the Department of National Defence.


Grote Stirling: University students were called up by age classes, were they not?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes; we are calling them up at present by age groups in the various divisions and in accordance with the requisition relating to the thirty-day men that comes to our department from the Department of National Defence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is re-calling the thirty-day men?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In other words, the minister would say that after they finished their thirty-day training they go to the reserve, and they are then within the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the minister's department is merely an agent.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Right, and the subject that is under discussion is whether that system should continue-


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is the loophole.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: -or whether the thirty-day men should not be pooled with all the other men in the same age group and remain subject to our regulations de novo, disregarding their thirty-day period of training altogether. The whole subject is under consideration between the two departments.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the minister's opinion?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think there is a good deal to be said for pooling the thirty-day men with all the other men in the same age group and subjecting them to call under the regulations ' whether they have done their thirty days training or not. That is my own view.


Grote Stirling: So presumably none of these thirty-day students have been called up?

War Appropriation-War Services


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I cannot say whether any of the thirty-day students have been called up or not. Many of them, I have no doubt, have been called up, but I cannot answer that question specifically.
The leader of the opposition referred to another subject of importance, and that is those persons whom he described, I think, as part-time students.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Partial or post-graduate students.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, or persons taking evening courses. That question is one which, in our opinion, requires a certain amount of revision, but there again may I point out that membership in the Canadian officers training corps is in accordance with national defence regulations, and it is a matter for the officer commanding the Canadian officers training corps pursuant to the regulations to indicate who may become members of the Canadian officers training corps. It would, therefore, be a matter to be discussed with the Department of National Defence whether any post-graduate students should be allowed to be members of the Canadian officers training corps and therefore, under the provisions of section 17 of the regulations, be excused from compulsory military training. It would also be necessary to deal with the subject of part-time students on the same basis. I would not wish to say categorically that no post-graduate student should be allowed to be a member of a Canadian officers training corps unit in his university, nor would I be willing to say categorically that no part-time student should be allowed to become a member of the Canadian officers training corps. I think it should be possible to have regulations of such a nature that no one could use them for the purpose of evading a call for military training.


Olof Hanson: That is exactly the point.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I thought that was what the leader of the opposition had in mind, and in that I am entirely at one with him. I think that out of the conferences I have mentioned we shall be able to deal with this subject, which is by no means easy, in a manner which will commend itself generally to members of the house and to the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister not think that the dual position has operated to bring about this situation where there may have been evasions? It appears to me that these men are under two authorities. Men in the Canadian officers training corps, whether they be partial or full undergraduates, once they are taken on the strength come under
the Department of National Defence and cannot be called up. I will not say that they shield themselves, because I do not mean to intimate anything improper, but once they are taken into the Canadian officers training corps they cannot be called up, and therefore they evade the military service which other young men who are not students have to go through.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The point is this. I
indicated at the very outset what the relationship of the Department of National War Services was to the Department of National Defence. We are an agent for the purpose of filling the requisition that comes to us from the Department of National Defence. If the Department of National Defence is satisfied with the military training these men are getting and is satisfied with the establishment of the Canadian officers training corps and with the conditions under which a unit of that corps is operating in any particular case, I would assume that the Department of National Defence is the proper department to determine that particular fact. Periodically these matters come up for review by reason of changing situations and changing circumstances. That has happened in the case of students. Some of the subsections of section 17 of the regulations are now spent; they have no value or use at all at the present time. I think I have now dealt in a general way with the subject of students to which the leader of the opposition referred.
There was one other reference which my hon. friend made. As reported at page 1639 of Hansard of March 25 last, he said:
My fourth question is in reference to the interpretation section, or that part having to do with key men, training period and war industry. I have often wondered how a man between the ages of twenty to twenty-five years could be considered a key man in industry. He may be a key man on the farm, but I doubt very much if any twenty-year-old man can be a key man in any industry.
There again the question is one of fact relating to the particular case involved, and the principle is not exclusively whether a man is a key man but whether he is essential to war industry. That general situation is provided for in section 14 of the regulations, where the board is required, when it deals with an application for postponement from persons in certain classes of occupations, to look at the whole situation from the point of view of the national interest and the supply of labour that is available in that particular locality. That is the governing principle in the granting of postponement, and there may be many young men in the age class of twenty-one to twenty-five who may be making a far greater contribution to the effectiveness of the
2S66

War Appropriation-War Services
war effort by remaining with war industry than by being called up for basic training. In each case it depends upon the facts of the particular situation, and I do not think it is possible to generalize with regard to the matter.
There are a great many other things that I could say with reference to the regulations. I could deal with the subject of conscientious objectors, and make a detailed report with respect to the work that they have been doing, and I could deal also wTith related subjects in that regard, such as conscientious objectors and their activities. I could also discuss other subjects over which the mobilization division of my department has charge, such as the recruiting of Canadian fire-fighters for Great Britain. 1 am quite sure that members of the committee will be glad to learn that the first group of officers of that organization has arrived safely in Great Britain.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister tell us
something of the plan?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I could speak on the subject for whatever length of time my hon. friend would like me to.


Major James William Coldwell: We want to know all about it in the shortest possible space of time.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The idea of raising Canadian fire-fighters for service in the United Kingdom arose after the visit of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence for Air to Great Britain. There was some discussion as to whether it should be a military organization or whether it should be an organization of a civilian nature. It was finally decided that it should be of a civilian nature.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They are all volunteers?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, like all others who are making their most useful contribution to the war effort. It was decided that the raising of these men should be assigned to the Department of National War Services. The organization took some time, but it is now, I think, in a very satisfactory form. The purpose of the corps, the initial strength of which is to consist of 400 officers and men, is to assist the national fire service in Great Britain in the extinction of fires, in the protection of life and property in case of fire in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, in the extinction of fires and the protection of property in ships and vessels at sea, and in rescue or salvage work, for which its appliances are suitable, in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Isle 
of Man. The fire chiefs throughout the dominion are giving great assistance in the recruiting of these men, without any expense to the public. All clothing and equipment are being purchased through the Department of Munitions and Supply. The men are put on the same rates of pay and are generally subject to the same conditions as members of the active army overseas. They have the benefit of the pension arrangements, and allowances and the like. The idea is that we shall send these men over to Britain in detachments of twenty-five or fifty, and they will then become associated with fire-fighting services there. The present indications are that we shall have no difficulty in raising the corps of 400 men that we set out to raise. That is a brief statement of the activity, which is likewise in the mobilization division of my department.


John Ritchie MacNicol: With regard to the officers of the fire-fighting units that are being sent over, are there commissioned officers and so forth ?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes. We follow very much the same kind of set-up as in the army. There are officers of various ranks and men of various ranks. A draft is ready to go overseas almost at any time.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have listened to one of the minister's brief statements explaining these regulations. He has dealt with conscientious objectors and fire-fighters, and one hypothetical case was brought to his attention. Yesterday we listened all day to an argument between lawyers, and lawyers are butting into this discussion pretty often.
At the outset this evening the minister said that he would welcome constructive suggestions. He said that some members of the committee had been making long speeches, much longer than he himself had made. I do not think he can accuse me of doing so, as far as this resolution is concerned, because on only two occasions, I think, have I said anything other than to ask a few questions. But to-night I am going to bring to his attention what I think is an important matter, because it deals with the provision of labour to take off the coming harvest. Some hon. members may think it is a little early to talk of this, but I do so because it is quite evident that it takes the minister's department and certain departments of the government quite a long time to get organized to do anything efficiently and in proper season. May I say also that this matter is brought to my attention through having received recently a number of letters similar to that mentioned by

War Appropriation-War Services
the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar a while ago. I have a number in my desk, I am not going to take time to read them, but one or two I shall refer to briefly.
Farmers have completed their seeding operations in spite of difficulties as far as labour is concerned. Great credit is due them that they have done as well as they have in getting a crop in. The seeding is pretty well all done in western Canada, the season has been favourable so far, and the outlook is for an average crop. But there is going to be a critical situation in harvest time. An order in council that has been discussed at considerable length on different occasions in the last three or four weeks was tabled, I think, on March 25. It is P C. 2251, and one clause of it was for the purpose of freezing employment in agriculture. Prior to that date the records show that enlistments in western Canada-and I am going to deal more particularly with the three prairie provinces-were very great; that is, very favourable compared with the rest of Canada, especially among the farmers. Also industry in eastern Canada had taken quite a toll of farm labour and farmers' sons. Many of them came east and got employment in industry, where they receive good wages. There has been considerable discussion of that order in council, and suggestions have been made that possibly another order should be passed, to all intents and purposes making that order retroactive at least eight months. However, that is a matter for the government to decide. I make the suggestion now that something of that kind might be done.
However, prior to that order being passed, many men had come from western Canada and secured positions in industry. Girls and women have also enlisted and come from the west, particularly the prairie provinces, in great numbers. Here in Ottawa many girls from the west are in offices. Their brothers have enlisted; they have a patriotic spirit; they come here and get a position or enlist. It may be of interest to hon. members to learn that women and girls can play a very important part in harvesting operations. Harvesting this year will be somewhat different from that in other years. The farmers have met the suggestions and regulations put out by the Department of Agriculture, they have complied with what the Minister of Agriculture asked them to do in increasing their seeding of coarse grains and flax. These crops cannot be harvested like wheat; they require more labour. Wheat now is generally "combined", and one man can do a great deal, taking the place of a dozen or more in harvesting. But that cannot be done with respect to coarse grains, they have to be cut with the binder,
stooked and so on. In the last few years girls and women have played a very important part in harvesting operations, but now many of them have enlisted or left the farms for other positions.
The question of university students was mentioned. I have here a note from one of the western papers which states that since January last a great many students have been leaving school to get employment before they should be barred from restricted occupations. Quite a number of farmers' sons of seventeen years of age and under have left school on that account and now are not available to help in the harvest. I know that representations have already been made to the Minister of Agriculture asking him to cooperate with the minister now before the committee to see that regulations are formulated to deal with this matter. There should have been regulations similar to order in council P.C. 2251 freezing farm employment a year ago. We should now have some understanding and a statement from the minister, before this resolution passes, as to what he proposes to do. His department is, I believe, conducting a national registration of unemployed between the ages of sixteen and seventy-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The hon. member has not read it with precision. That is not so.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, I have it here. I will read the information put out by the public information bureau. It says:
Compulsory registration of all men between 17 and 69 has been ordered by the head of Canada's national selective service. This is part of the programme to mobilize the country's man-power resources to meet the demand of the armed services and war industry.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is an indication of the need for precision. The hon. member will see that the matter does not come within my department at all.


Ernest Edward Perley: I was just going to say that this order should have applied to agriculture. It says mobilization for the armed services and war industry. It should have included the agricultural industry, which is just as much a war industry as any other. All we want is fair consideration.
I have here a statement made by the Minister of National Defence when he was before the committee the first three days. He said they expected that there would be 15,000 women enlisted between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. Then he gave the number of men called up for military training under the National Resources Mobilization Act in each province and accepted at national defence army basic training centres from October 9,

War Appropriation-War Services
1940, to March 12, 1942. All I want to use this table for is to show in what numbers the three prairie provinces in particular have given their men, and the postponements asked under this regulation when they were called up are here listed. This is the table:
Appli-
		cations for	Appli-
JS'umber	postpone-	cationscalled up	rr.ent	grantedSaskatchewan .	. 9,424	2,874	1,803Manitoba	. 8.331	3.231	2,442Alberta	. 9,024	2,534	2,334Quebec 	. 38,433	37,163	22,174
Applications were granted in Quebec almost in the ratio of one to one and a half, while in Saskatchewan-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The lowest percentage was in Quebec.


Ernest Edward Perley: There were 22,000 postponements granted out of 37,000 asked for and
38.000	called up. They nearly all asked for postponements, according to the table placed on record by the minister when he was first before the committee.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Unfortunately my hon. friend is falling into the same error that the editorial writer of the Citizen fell into. I spent fifteen or twenty minutes in explaining that error. It is not a case of 37,000 of the
38.000	having applied for postponement. The
38.000	were accepted for training; they all went into the army and none had a postponement granted.


Ernest Edward Perley: The table is taken from Hansard.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Read it again, and read it with precision.


Ernest Edward Perley: The column is headed: Number of men called up for military training under the National Resources Mobilization Act in each of the provinces, and accepted at national defence (army) basic training centres, since October 9, 1940, up to March 12, 1942.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That means that all those men were called up and went into uniform. The next column has nothing to do with that.


Ernest Edward Perley: There were practically as many secured postponements as went into training.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not at all; read it again.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, it is in the table. I took it from Hansard. Take the minister's own statement and add one and two together. Is that right?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No.


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes. There were 38,000 who went into training, and in addition there were another 22,000 who secured postponements; is that right?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: Then one of every two and a half got a postponement?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Make your own arithmetical calculations.


Ernest Edward Perley: Perhaps the minister is a mathematician; he may be able to figure it out. I am giving him an I.Q. test now. If you take Saskatchewan on the same basis, there was only one out of every eleven, and the ratio is about the same for Manitoba and Alberta. The point I want to make is that fewer postponements were granted in the three prairie provinces than in any other province, on a comparative basis, which means that more men have gone from the farms. In addition, there have been many enlistments of farmers and farmers' sons; their showing has been very creditable. As a result there is a dearth of labour available to take off the harvest. The Minister of National Defence also said definitely that harvest leave would not be granted to those in the active service forces in Canada. We have no objection at all to that, but it is evident that there will be no leave granted for harvest leave. So I want the minister, now that he is registering the unemployed between sixteen and seventy, to use those figures to mobilize the man-power and woman-power of Canada so that sufficient may be available to the west to assist in taking off the harvest.
I bring this matter to the attention of the minister now. He may smile, but his record for action does not warrant any smiling. This is an important matter, and we are going to have an acute situation in the west with respect to labour. It is a serious matter now, and I bring it to the attention of the minister only because I want action. According to the letters I have received, the farmers are very much concerned about how they are going to get along. Take a case like that mentioned by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, a farmer left alone, with no son and no hired help, with eight or nine hundred acres in crop and no prospect of getting anyone to help him take it off. Why, I have one case in which the farmer's daughter has donned the uniform and enlisted, and he is left all alone to take off his crop. This is just as important war work as anything else, and I should like a statement from the minister as to what he proposes to do with these figures he is getting in regard to unemployment.

War Appropriation-War Services


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have pointed out already that I am not getting any figures with regard to unemployment, that it does not come under my department.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I come from a real farming country, where there is a real shortage of labour, in particular for dairy farms. I cannot quite appreciate any shortage on the prairies, because I understood we in this house were arranging to have all the prairie farms summer-fallowed, or something like that. Where I come from this shortage is very serious; but before I go on with that I want to take up my controversial subject.
I am very much interested in learning what the minister intends to do with regard to conscientious objectors in British Columbia. Any explanation the minister has given me so far in answer to my questions along this line certainly has not been satisfactory either to me [DOT]or to my constituents or, I think, to the people of British Columbia as a whole. In my province the people who presumably were to be called up by the minister's department have all gone into the shipyards or other highly paid employment-and for the benefit of any hon. member who might question me I do not say too highly paid, nevertheless highly paid positions. These men obtain, in many cases, the benefits of a high rate of wages; 98 cents an hour, to be accurate. They happen to be exempt by law from military service; they do not have to carry out the duty of any ordinary citizen, that of defending his own country. They are exempted by law from having to do so.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The hon. member should be more careful in his statements. They are postponed in respect of their military training if they show that they are Mennonites or Doukhobors within the meaning of section 18 of the regulations, or conscientious objectors within the meaning of section 19. That arises only when they have been called up under the regulations. Then, if their claim is recognized, as a Mennonite or Doukhobor or conscientious objector, they are held for alternative service in work camps; and when they are directed to that alternative service, which may now be for the duration of the war, they receive 50 cents a day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But how many are there?


George Alexander Cruickshank: With all due deference to the minister I must say that he is not correct in his assumption. I presume he has been ill advised by his department. That is not correct in British Columbia, whatever may be the situation in the rest of Canada.
This is the original call that came-I deliberately avoided using names; but since the minister has put them on record, I will say they were conscientious objectors. I will now tell the minister how they were exempted from service-and this is a very serious matter. The minister may think it is not serious, but certainly it is serious to the mothers of the boys in England to-day, or of those who may not come back. It is a very serious matter to them.
Under our so-called mobilization act I think the age was twenty-one to twenty-four; is that not correct? They were called up from twenty-one to twenty-four years; but the minister apparently never heard of twenty-five years of age.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It was set at thirty.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Pardon me; you are speaking of the present time. I will leave it to the committee as to whether the minister was correct or not. Sometimes it pays to wait until all the facts are put before one, and then attempt to answer them; not to jump in ahead of time. The original measure called for men from twenty-one to twenty-four. A boy twenty-four years and two days old could go into a shipyard at 98 cents an hour. He did not have to apply for exemption; he did not go to an army camp at 50 cents a day-and I defy the minister to contradict that. Mark that; I do not say he is incorrect-certainly not. I do not say that, but I will put it that he is ill advised. However, it is not an assumption that should be put as stated by the minister; the age was not originally thirty years. They were not called up; they were not called into these army camps-I am referring to the boys who happened to be twenty-four years and one day old.
They went into the shipyards. Then what happened? Because this act did not function as some of us in the rump suggested a year ago it should act-that is, it did not bring in national selective service at the proper time- these men went into the shipyards and other highly paid war industries, with the result that they are now classed as essential war workers, skilled workmen, carpenters and shipbuilders. Some of them never saw a ship in their lives, unless it was in a movie. But now they are classed as skilled workmen because they are working in those shipyards. I could give the minister the names of plenty of them in war industry who have not had to get exemption. I do not think it is a proper practice, and the minister has yet to show me any excuse for it.

War Appropriation-War Services
I would be interested in hearing the minister's-I will not call it an excuse; possibly I should say I would be interested in hearing him try to explain to me that they are exempted only through postponement. Then we go on to those men thirty years and one day old. By an act of parliament these conscientious objectors are given exemptions from defending their country. I am not blaming the present minister, the present government or possibly the past government. I believe it was pointed out that the provision was made in 1873. But I must urge the seriousness of the situation, a seriousness which unfortunately the minister has not yet grasped. I should like to make myself particularly clear to the hon. member for Vancouver East. Let hon. members bear in mind that I am not quarrelling with the unions, either. I have a great respect for the unions, because I believe in collective bargaining. The labouring man would have a terrible time to-day if he did not have his union to protect his interests.
These conscientious objectors are allowed to avoid military service to defend their country. However, they go into a shipyard and automatically they must join unions. Any man who applies for any position must join one of the unions. I have no quarrel with the unions, or with the principle of collective bargaining which I strongly endorse; but I do say that once these men are in the shipyard unions, they can tie up the most essential war industry we have in Canada or in the British empire, namely that of shipbuilding. Surely, if a man has the right to strike and to tie up a war industry, he should not have the right to exemption from service to his country. I should be interested to hear the minister's explanation of that.
I have a question in mind which I could direct to the hon. member for Parkdale. He might think I do not know anything about this matter. Erankly I do not know much about it, but I have noticed that a number of members talk about many things concerning which their knowledge is limited. I should like to know how young doctors from twenty-one to thirty years of age are treated, so far as their calls for military service are concerned. I have information from certain medical men in British Columbia that there is a need, estimated by the Department of National Defence, for some 600 medical men in the current year. I am also told that medical authorities in that department say that at the present time there is an urgent need for 200. I presume those figures are correct.
I should like it to be understood that I am not criticizing the medical profession or the

minister's department. I am asking for information. The information which comes to me has given me certain figures, and I am also advised that in British Columbia there is an advisory council of medical men and, I believe, a central advisory council for Canada, whose duty it is to advise so that doctors will not enlist and leave any part of Canada without proper medical service. That is my information.
I cannot see why young doctors under thirty years of age should be in a position to avoid the call, stay at home and take the practices of many doctors, particularly in the city of Vancouver, who have wonderful practices built up by themselves, but who have answered the call and gone away. I see no reason why these young men under thirty years of age should be allowed to stay at home and walk into those practices, while the original practitioners are serving overseas. I am speaking from information given to me by practical medical men of my province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A lawyer
would say that the hon. member is acting on instructions.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad lawyers have been mentioned, because I shall have a word to say about them in a moment or two. May I repeat that I am not criticizing the medical profession, but I do say that these men under thirty years of age should be subject to call. The advisory council in the province should say whether a certain doctor can or cannot be spared. I believe the hon. member for Parkdale will understand that situation better than I do. It seems reasonable to me that older doctors-and I could give their names; the hon. member for Park-dale would know many of them from British Columbia-should not be deprived of their practices when they answer the call to go to war. I see no reason why the young, single, medical men under thirty years of age should stay at home and step into those practices. It is only a reasonable assumption that these young medical men should be as liable to call as any other men, with the proviso that the advisory council should make a decision as to whether they can be spared from the province.
A question has been raised with respect to lawyers. Recently I received a letter from a young lawyer in Nova Scotia asking if I could advise him as to how he could stay out of the army. I would be pleased to show the letter to the leader of the opposition, and I would very much like to show the two-page letter I wrote advising this young lawyer to get into the army, and not stay out of it.

War Appropriation-War Services


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Lawyers have done very well in the army.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Of course, but not half as well as farmers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There are
more farmers.


William Ross Macdonald: There is a high percentage of lawyers in the army.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is a good job; I admit that.


William Ross Macdonald: As fighting soldiers.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not depreciating the fact, and I may say that the hon. member for Brantford City was one of the best fighting soldiers we had overseas in the last war. However, this young student attending Dalhousie university put it up to me, on the assumption that he could avoid service because of his attendance at university. I am willing to concede that medical men, and men engaged in many other lines, are essential, and should be permitted to complete their university courses and branch out into our war effort. The sooner those men are graduated, the better. But by no stretch of the imagination can I see the need for any more lawyers in Canada for the war effort, or any other effort.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I shall try to deal briefly with the two questions put by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. The first one which relates to doctors I think can be answered in just a sentence or two. All doctors within the callable ages, which are now twenty-one to thirty years, are subject to call in the same way as anyone else. Any young doctor so called has a right to apply for postponement of his military training. His case would come before a divisional board which would either grant or refuse the application. I have no doubt that before a board arrives at any decision in the matter it would consult the competent medical authority, the advisory council or whatever it is in the particular province.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How about dentists? I understand they are needed also.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They would be dealt with in the same way. The hon. member for Fraser Valley referred also to conscientious objectors. Persons who are not within the callable ages may work at any employment that they may be able to get. We started off by calling persons in the age group from
twenty-one to twenty-four years, and only those persons who were covered by the proclamation were subject to call. Recently we extended the age group subject to call by the issue of another proclamation which calls upon persons in the age group from twenty-one to thirty years. Persons who are beyond that age are free to work in any employment that they may obtain. The question as to whether such a person is or is not a conscientious objector does not arise.


Mr. TUSTIN:: I understand that the minister's department issues a requisition for a certain number of men in a certain district. Under what plan does the registrar call up the number required? Are they called alphabetically or how?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The registrar calls his men by age groups, taking the lowest age group first. I think I described it last fall as calling men by juniority. This call is spread over the whole division as equitably as possible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Geographically?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Each division is comprised of a certain number of electoral districts, and the registrar is asked to distribute the quota he must fill as equitably as possible over his whole division and call men according to juniority.
To come back to conscientious objectors, the question as to whether a man is or is not a conscientious objector does not arise for anybody to determine in respect of persons who are not in the callable age group. My hon. friend is quite right when he says that persons of, say thirty-one years of age might be employed in a shipyard. No one will have determined whether such a man is a conscientious objector because he has not applied for postponement of his military training. There is no automatic postponement in respect of any class of persons. In each case there is an individual decision made by the board in respect of an application for postponement of military training on the grounds of conscientious objection.
In our attitude toward conscientious objection we are taking exactly the same attitude as that taken by every civilized country in the world, and we intend to continue to take that civilized attitude. I doubt if there is a single man in this house who can understand in himself the point of view of a conscientious objector; nevertheless we think we are all determined that we should adopt an attitude toward conscientious objection similar to that adopted by other civilized countries. I have yet to learn of an employer in this country

War Appropriation-War Services
asking any person as a condition precedent to his employment what his attitude is toward the bearing of arms. The question of conscientious objection does not arise.
These men are as good workers as any other men. Hundreds of so-called Mennonites have enlisted for active service anywhere in the world. A great number have indicated their desire to undertake the most dangerous service possible, notwithstanding the fact that they have conscientious objection to the bearing of arms or the taking of human life. The situation which my hon. friend brings to my attention is one that we cannot criticize. These men are good workmen, and they are not subject to call for the time being any more than anyone else in the same age group. But when we move the age group up-


George Alexander Cruickshank: 


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not if, when. We will probably move up the age group very soon. We are now calling the age group of from twenty-one to thirty years, and I would not be at all surprised if we moved that forward to thirty-five years within a very short time. Then the persons to whom the hon. member for Fraser Valley refers, those who are now thirty-one years of age, will be called up. If they claim postponement on conscientious objection grounds and that claim is granted, then they will be held for alternative service.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The minister has stated that we have no way of knowing who are conscientious objectors, but did we not take a registration some time ago?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No one gets postponement until he applies personally for postponement on the ground of being either a Mennonite or a Doukhobor within the meaning of section 18 of the regulations, or a conscientious objector within the meaning of section 19.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is not answering my question. The minister has said that we have no way of knowing.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is correct.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If the minister will go to his own files and look at the back of one of these registration cards, he will see what a man signs. I understand that some
2,000	Doukhobors are conscientious objectors when they would not even register.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Many so-called Mennonites have enlisted.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am talking about Doukhobors. Let us finish with the Doukhobors first. Have all Doukhobors registered?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why have they not registered if they are not conscientious objectors?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have said about all I think I can say on the subject of Doukhobors; that is. the British Columbia variety known as the Sons of Freedom. I do not know that we need to go into that to any greater extent at the present time because I have covered the matter twice at great length. There is really nothing I can add to what I have said already.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It seems to me that one of the functions of this department is to take into consideration the total man-power and other resources of the dominion and then to work out plans that will result in the most effective war effort. I can understand that the Minister of National Defence quite rightly thinks that the most important department in the war effort is national defence, and the same thing applies to the minister for air and the minister for naval services. The Minister of Munitions and Supply has also a tremendous programme, and the Minister of Agriculture is naturally concerned about producing food for Canadians and for the people of Great Britain. It therefore seems to me that the Department of National War Services should be the one department able to view the entire field and to work out the most effective plans. I have been puzzled as to why national plans have not been worked out more effectively. Reference has been made to the orders in council and to the minister's memorandum in connection with the manpower policy as it applies to agriculture. But still I do not think we have a department here that is planning the most effective things that can be done. In the memorandum which the Minister of National War Services placed on the record, it is stated, as reported on page 2307 of Hansard:
When the applicant has shown that he is a person wholly or mainly employed in agriculture within the meaning of the amended regulations, it is mandatory upon the board, subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, to grant the postponement order.
But when you come to the exceptions you find this:
The board is not required to grant a postponement order until further notice to an applicant if it is established to the satisfaction of the board, either (1) that the applicant is not an essential worker in agriculture, or (2) that the applicant has at any time subsequent to March 23 ceased to be actually employed or engaged in agriculture or in a primary industry.
In other words, the memorandum says that postponement will be granted, but it also says that the boards may decide that the applicant

War Appropriation-War Services
is not an essential worker in agriculture. I realize that the minister has not time to study all the individual cases, but members of parliament here in Ottawa are in the position that we cannot discuss principles without reference to specific cases that come to our attention.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And which illustrate the principle.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes. I had occasion to discuss with the chairman of the board in Saskatchewan, the case of a married man and his wife alone on a farm. The married man received a call to report in January last. The chairman of the board in Saskatchewan said, when I appeared on this man's behalf, "This man's wife would be in a better position if he were in the army and she were getting an allowance," and he reminded me that there was a war on. I resented the attitude he took of assuming that because I had been appealed to, I was not as fully aware as he was that there was a war on. I cannot understand why the board in Regina should be the final authority to decide what the agricultural policy of Canada shall be or what the agricultural policy for Saskatchewan shall be.
Yesterday I received an airmail letter in connection with a young man who had just turned twenty-one last December. He and his father are on a 320-acre farm. This lad received his medical call on April 21. He applied for postponement and on May 17 received a letter stating that his postponement was refused. On May 20 he received his ticket and a notice to be in Prince Albert on May 21, less than twenty-four hours after he had received his ticket. His family had read in the Winnipeg Free Press that we are not calling any more farm boys who are engaged in agriculture. I am not familiar with that farm or with the family, but according to the letter I have received, the father cannot, without help, carry on operations on that farm with ten horses and two outfits. The young man has been called, and now that he is in the army he goes into another category. The army authorities, I suppose, are not kindly disposed toward granting him any postponement for any extended period. So that in spite of the announced policy of this government regarding the necessity of keeping men on the farm to carry on our agriculture production programme, it would appear to me that the board in Saskatchewan can, as matters now stand, ignore this statement of policy of the government. The board does not have to prove to any particular applicant that the applicant, to use the exact words of the memorandum, "is not an essential worker in agriculture." If the
board in Regina with the evidence before them say that this man is not essential in agriculture, that closes the subject and the man is called. If I am to judge by the remarks which the chairman of the board made to me last January, his opinion is that every able-bodied man should be in the army.
I think some responsible department of the government should decide the maximum number we require in the army. I am not suggesting that we have that maximum number now; but sooner or later some responsible department will have to make that decision, and when we do reach the maximum number required for the army we should retain on the farms a sufficient number of men to carry on the farming industry to supply the needs of the army and of civilian life in this country and our needs overseas. I wish the minister would announce a policy which could be carried out all across Canada with respect to retaining on the farm however many men are needed there. I should like to support what the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle have said. Apparently vve have no regulations that are carried out uniformly across the country. Can the minister make any further statement in that connection?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the hon. member for Mackenzie are raising again this evening a matter that was very ably presented by the hon. member for Haldimand on May 25. There has been a full discussion of his point of view and a full discussion of the reasons governing the agricultural policy that was based on order in council P.C. 2252. I do not think I can usefully add anything to what I said on that occasion. The case for agriculture was ably presented by the hon. member for Haldimand, and I attempted to give the reasons for the agricultural policy which resulted in the adoption of the stabilization of employment and agriculture regulations of 1942 which are set out in order in council P.C. 2251 and the adoption of order in council P.C. 2252, relating to the calling up of persons under the national war services regulations. I cannot usefully add anything to what I said then.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister will have noticed that most of these cases are being presented by members who represent constituencies in Saskatchewan.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle in the Conservative party and we in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have presented cases from Saskatchewan, and

War Appropriation-War Services
Saskatchewan members in the Liberal party on the other side of the house have done the same thing. I suggest to the minister that this should indicate to him that there is probably something in the province of Saskatchewan that needs investigation.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It may indicate something quite different.


Major James William Coldwell: It may indicate something quite different, but I suggest that there is something in the province of Saskatchewan that needs looking into. It was stated earlier in this debate that the board in Saskatchewan consisted of responsible men of very high standing. I am not going to gainsay that, but I am going to say this, that I think the chairman of the board in particular is a gentleman who has only one point of view, and that is the point of view as expressed to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), that every able-bodied man ought to be in uniform. Another member of the board holds pretty much the same view.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Name the third member of the board.


Major James William Coldwell: I have named two. Mr. Justice Embury is the chairman, a man with a military mind and as irascible as some elderly generals are.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is he a general?


Major James William Coldwell: A brigadier.


Howard Charles Green: And a fine one too.


Major James William Coldwell: But fine generals towards the latter years of their life sometimes become a little bit irascible; I use that word.


Harry Raymond Fleming: Senile decay.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There are not many suffering from that.


Major James William Coldwell: The second member of the board is Mr. Carl Stewart. Saskatchewan Liberals know him, and probably Saskatchewan Conservatives know him to their sorrow. The third member of the board is Mr. George Bickerton.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Who is he?


Major James William Coldwell: President of the United Farmers of Canada.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Saskatchewan section.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. The minister knows from numerous letters that he has received that there is dissatisfaction here and there; and while I hold no brief for conscientious objectors, like the minister I cannot see that under present circumstances, in the present [Mr. Coldwell.J
kind of war, conscientious objection is as it might have been had this war been of a different type. There are people who do not believe that under any circumstances it is right to take human life, and the minister knows that there are young men, conscientious objectors, who have offered, as he said, to do the most dangerous kind of work. I know of young men who have offered to learn to drive ambulances and to go into the firing line, young men who have offered to learn to fight fires and to go into the burning cities of Great Britain; and I know that such young men have been sent to work camps, there to do manual labour for which they were not fitted or trained.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And did it very well.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, at 50 cents a day. I was in England last autumn and, while there, I learned something of the treatment of conscientious objectors. There, in that country at war, liberty of conscience is respected, and the man who has a conscientious objection is respected and is allowed to do some useful work in connection with the war effort or in connection with some great social project. I know of one young man, the son of one of the greatest figures in the British war effort at the present time, who is teaching a group of refugee children in a school which he maintains himself. That is looked upon as a worthwhile project. But Canadian authorities have taken the view that if any man has a conscientious objection to bearing arms, there is nothing for him to do but go into the work camp.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Alternative service.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what they call it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It may take a variety of forms before it is over.


Major James William Coldwell: Before it is over; but at the present time young men in Saskatchewan are taken right out of-


An hon. MEMBER:: Off the farm.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, and they are taken out of university or school and made to use pick and shovel in a work camp. That is called justice. That is not alternative service; it is punishment and it is wrong. That is what those of us who represent Saskatchewan constituencies are complaining about. I say that no man should be given any authority or opportunity to exercise sadistic propensities in this time of war. We are going to reap the whirlwind if we sow this wind of cruelty in the present war. If we do this, wherein do we differ from Hitler or the nazi regime? Liberty

War Appropriation-War Services
of conscience, I take it, is what we are fighting for-liberty of conscience and freedom of speech, the freedom of men to choose their own destiny. That is what we are fighting for, and it is the antithesis of all of which we complain. That is probably the reason why the minister is getting so much discussion from members from Saskatchewan.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is not all of it.


Major James William Coldwell: Having said that, may I ask him some questions about another case? We have said from time to time that we have been gravely suspicious that compulsory military training may result in some persons using it to crush labour organizations. I came to Ottawa on the train from Montreal the other evening, and I met a young man about whom the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) asked a question on April 23. He asked a question about some complaints made by Allan C. Wright, who was organizer at Vancouver for the steel workers of Canada. Air. Wright complained of the intimidation of workers. He was a young man of about thirty, a resident of the city of Toronto. His home was there. He was out at the Pacific coast doing a job for the organization with which he was associated, and right in the midst of that job he was called to the colours at Vancouver. Notice was sent to call him out of his work as a labour organizer. He happened to be in Toronto when the call came to him on his return to that city.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is not true.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what I understood from him. Perhaps I am mistaken but in any event the minister can tell the story if he knows it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I will.


Major James William Coldwell: The suspicion I have is that the mobilization act was used to prevent this young man from going on with the work of organizing labour on the Pacific coast. That is the only construction which could be placed on the action that was taken. He was improperly called out of his own district, called in the city of Vancouver when he was there doing his duty for a legitimate labour union.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a
charge.


Major James William Coldwell: It is not a charge.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I shall answer it.


Major James William Coldwell: It is a statement made to me, and I am repeating it on the floor of the house so that it can be looked into.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have dealt with it. The case to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has referred, was brought to my attention by the hon. member for Vancouver East on May 11, I believe it was. The young man to whom the hon. member for Vancouver East referred, after he had got his notice to report for military training to Vernon, British Columbia, flew to Ottawa. The hon. member for Vancouver East asked me whether I would see this young man, and I told him I would.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That you would not?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Why would I say I would not? I said I would.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I did not catch what the
minister said.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I saw the young man,
and I got from him his statement of the facts.
I caused an inquiry to be made with regard to the whole situation. The facts that were brought to my attention were of such a nature that it might be inferred that the man's registration card had been ordered to be transferred from Toronto to Vancouver otherwise than in due course.


Major James William Coldwell: Who ordered that?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That was a requisition
from my department to the registrar at Toronto, and was at the request of the chairman of the board at Vancouver. The board at Vancouver would have no jurisdiction to deal with the man in Vancouver without the registration card. I have stated on a number of occasions that I was determined that there must be the utmost integrity in the administration of the regulations, that they are to be used for the purpose for which they were devised, namely, the filling of requisitions that come from the Department of National Defence. The regulations are part of the mobilization law of this country. I am also of opinion that under no circumstances may the regulations be used for any other purpose. It does not matter a particle to me from the point of view of the administration of the regulations whether the man is a labour agitator or what he is. His activities may be undesirable activities, but the national war service regulations must not be used except for the purpose for which they are devised.
I came to the view that there was some doubt as to the regularity of the transfer of the card from Toronto to Vancouver. There is an argument both ways. It is a matter of interpretation, of the term "change of address"; a matter of interpretation of one of the regulations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it
address or residence?

War Appropriation-War Services


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The jurisdiction to call
a man is based on the residence of the man.


Major James William Coldwell: This man's residence
was Toronto.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: This man stated that
his residence was in Toronto, and when he was asked for his registration card his card showed this Toronto address. Regulation 26
reads:
If, at any time, while a man is liable to be called out, any change occurs in his address or in his matrimonial status, he shall forthwith notify such change to the divisional registrar of the administrative division in which such man resided immediately before such change occurred . . .
At the coast there are a great many '"floaters"; that is, they have not any real residence, and when the good weather comes they go out to the coast. In the ordinary course of events those men are checked periodically and their registration cards looked at. Those men really for the purpose of the regulations have changed their residence. But I do not think that could be said of this labour agitator.


Major James William Coldwell: He is not an agitator.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not think there is
any doubt about his being an agitator.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What is the minister's definition of an agitator?


Major James William Coldwell: He is a duly appointed officer of a legitimate labour organization, with his residence and headquarters in Toronto.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Whether he was or was
not an agitator is beside the point.


Major James William Coldwell: It is a word that had
better be left out of this debate.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Even	if he	were	anagitator, of which	I personally	have	no
doubt-


Major James William Coldwell: And which I am certain
he is not.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Even	if he	were	anagitator and engaged in	activities as	an
agitator, he is not to be removed from those activities through the agency of the regulations under my charge.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Illegally.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Irregularly. It seemed to me from a review of all the facts that there was some doubt as to the regularity of the transfer of that man's card from Toronto to Vancouver. Without the card the divisional board at Vancouver would have no jurisdiction over the man. There was also some

doubt in my mind as to the regularity of the man's call in Vancouver in due course. So at two o'clock in the morning of May 21 I sent directions to the chairman and registrar of the_ board directing the transfer of the man's registration card back to Toronto, with effect as from April 27, the date it was sent from Toronto to Vancouver. I directed also the cancellation of the man's notice to report for military training, because I am determined that under no circumstances may these regulations, that is the regulations which are entrusted to my charge, be used for any purpose other than that for which they are designed, namely mobilization, not regulations under which the maximum number of postponements can be granted. It seems to me that there is almost a competition in the course of this debate among some Saskatchewan members, some of whom are still to-speak, for postponements.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not true.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The board is composed as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has indicated-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister permit a question? First, did he. under the statute or the regulations passed under the statute, have authority to take the steps which he did take? I would not assume that the minister would take that step unless he felt certain he had jurisdiction, but I ask the question for greater certainty.
Second, and more important, was there any evidence of sabotage on the part of anybody with respect to this individual, to get him out of the way by this method, or was it done in good faith on the part of those administering the law? Because so far that has been the indication underlying the theory of the hon. member's suggestion-"suspicion" is the word he used. Was there any evidence of sabotage against this man on the part of, say employers who wanted to get rid of him?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not think there was any evidence of sabotage. I think the board at Vancouver was actuated by motives that commended themselves to the board. I think they acted out of, shall I say excess of zeal.


Major James William Coldwell: Zeal for what?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There was no evidence
of any sabotage.
Mr.HANSON (York-Sunbury): What about the question of jurisdiction?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I came to the conclusion that I had power to issue directions of the kind I did issue, under the provisions of section 22 of the regulations.

War Appropriation-War Services


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Now that we have disposed of this one man case that has taken up so much time, I must say that I was pleased indeed to hear the minister say a few days ago that this was a mobilization act, not a demobilization act. One sitting in this house and listening to a great many of the remarks made would almost think we were more interested in keeping men out of the army than in getting them into it. We have shown a great deal of sympathy for conscientious objectors. I am proud to say that in my own province we have very few of these people. Out of some six thousand men whom I have had at my military camp, we have had less than half a dozen conscientious objectors. It seems to me that a great deal of sympathy has been expressed in this house for people of this class, one might almost say maudlin sympathy, indeed more than has been expressed for the men who are really trying to do their duty and carry on the work that is necessary.
We have little complaint in New Brunswick, where we have an efficient registrar and an efficient board, of which Chief Justice Baxter is chairman. There is a question I should like to ask, however, in connection with farm labour, following what has been said by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and some other hon. gentlemen. My question is with regard to the distribution of farm labour. There are certain sections of my province- and I am satisfied that the same thing is true all over Canada-where the farms have been almost depleted of men. I believe that is particularly so in the Kennebecasis valley, in my own constituency, and up the St. John river in the other part of the province. Those sections have been drained of practically all the young men who were on the farms, and I may add that these are the best farming sections in the province. In my constituency we have large dairy farms with practically no help. Up the St. John river there are the large potato farms, also with practically no help. But then we have other sections where there are smaller farms, perhaps 100 or 120 acres, and it is from these sections that most of the applications for postponement are coming. On some of these farms there are five or six men, yet they are asking for exemption and getting it. On the one hand, in certain sections we have small farms with numbers of men on them and, on the other hand, large farms, with practically no men.
My question to the minister is this. How is he going to distribute this labour? The same thing applies to labour in the west. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle has said that in certain sections the farms have been practically depleted of men. Is labour to be taken
from one section of Canada and placed in another? Is it to be distributed evenly over a province? After all, there is no use in saying that we are going to hold so many men on the farms if on one farm there is no labour at all and on another, a smaller farm, there are more men than are really required. As I understand it, these men must be engaged in farm labour. I believe this is a problem which the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of National War Services will have to take into consideration. Something will have to be done in order to have a proper distribution of the farm labour which has been frozen on the land.


Mr. CLAXTON:: I wonder if I might bring up a new subject before the committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Perhaps I might get an
answer to the question I asked the minister.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon; I was not aware of the fact that he had asked me a question.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I asked if the minister
had any idea of how the distribution of this farm labour will be carried out. They have been frozen on the farms of the country. How are you going to distribute them?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is not going to be the easiest problem to deal with; indeed it is an exceedingly difficult one. It is part of the problem of utilizing man-power to the fullest possible extent, where questions of the mobility or immobility of man-power are involved. It is undoubtedly true that in some areas of Canada the supply of agricultural labour has been so much depleted that the situation is very serious, while in other parts of Canada the situation is not quite so bad. The departments vitally concerned are the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labour and my own department to the extent that the calling up of men may make inroads upon the supply of agricultural labour. We tried by the adoption of the agricultural policy that underlies order in council P.C. 2252 to prevent any further drain upon agricultural labour, in the hope that if we could prevent the agricultural situation across Canada from getting any worse we could get by-not any more than that-with our agricultural commitments that are part of our war effort. For that reason we decided that we would stabilize employment in agriculture, as far as possible, of persons who are wholly or mainly employed in agriculture and, subject to certain exemptions, prevent them from leaving agriculture. In other words, using language that perhaps is not exact, we were freezing them in agriculture. I will admit that this does not fully meet the

War Appropriation-War Services
situation in the areas which have been too greatly depleted, but that is a situation which will demand our very best attention.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is merely reaffirming the position taken by the hon. member for Royal. What does the minister propose to do about it? That is the practical question. How is he going to distribute this labour? I have an illustration that I can give to the minister. In one county a call was sent out for twenty men to do some work at a camp. Three hundred turned up. There is a plethora of men in that community, while in the county of Kings you cannot hire a man to milk a cow to save your soul. This situation must be dealt with.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The situation is uneven, and in so far as labour can be moved from one area to another, every effort will be made to move it. But I made reference to the subject of mobility and immobility of labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But the minister did not tell us that the government had any policy.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is encouraging the movement of men from one part of Canada to another, where labour is required. That is the essential purpose of the labour employment offices established by the Department of Labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, that is for industry; we are talking about agriculture.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. In many years the largest supply of agricultural labour, in so far as the west is concerned, has been found by the labour employment offices; they are a very important agency for finding the agricultural requirements in respect of labour.


Harry Raymond Fleming: I wish to ask merely one or two questions. First of all, were two sets of instructions issued, the one that appears on Hansard and another one?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The answer to that is no.


Harry Raymond Fleming: All right.
A few days ago there was a discussion in the house with respect to lawyers, and whether a young man could employ a solicitor to conduct his case for him. I hold in my hand a leter from Mr. A. C. Stewart, a member of the board in Saskatchewan, in which he says:
Our board is being criticized in the house for being influenced by the efforts of solicitors, who are suspected of making money through the efforts they put forward to have men postponed. We intend from now on to pay no attention to any communications from solicitors received on the subject.

Did the minister issue instructions to that board that solicitors were not to send in representations with respect to these men's cases?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No; the regulations are the only directions on the subject; no directions have been issued from the department.


Harry Raymond Fleming: I am told that there was another set of regulations.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
should like to speak concerning a different subject entirely. What is the minister going to do in regard to the Canadian women's voluntary services? This organization was formed in June, 1941, and was registered under the War Charities Act in September of that year. Since that time these women have done a wonderful work, and are continuing to do it to-day. Now, however, the government seems to disregard them entirely, and wants to take over what the women have been doing. Instead of its being on a voluntary basis, the government has now engaged a Mrs. West as director at a salary of $4,000 a year, and has appointed an assistant at a yearly salary of
83,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The salary of the former is $4,800.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Plus expenses. These C.W.V.S. women have carried on their work, especially across Ontario, at no expense whatsoever to the government. They have given their time, service and everything else.
In his letter of April 27, 1942, to the president of the Canadian women's voluntary services at Toronto the minister says:
It was finally decided to establish a division of the Department of National War Services to be known as the division of women's voluntary services. This division was established by order in council P.C. 8488, dated October 31, 1941.
That was only a month after the Canadian women's voluntary services had been registered under the act. However, the government did not tell the women about it at that time, and they have been carrying on ever since. They are now wondering what is going to-happen to them. Another part of the minister's letter states:
I have therefore approved of the organization and development of the division of women's voluntary services as outlined in the attached memorandum. A study of this memorandum will indicate that the approach of your organization to coordination of women's voluntary effort is the exact opposite to that of our division. In the past ten days Mrs. West and Miss Held have been visiting many of the Ontario communities and find there is a great deal of confusion because of the similarity in name of the two organizations.

War Appropriation-TV'ar Services
I am therefore waiting to advise you that much as I regret to take this action, it will be necessary for my department to terminate the registration of your organization under the War Charities Act under its present name

"Canadian women's voluntary services".
We would, however, be pleased to consult with you as to methods of cooperation from your organization, under some other name, in furthering the objects of the women's voluntary services division of the Department of National War Services.
This letter is signed by J. T. Tliorson. The government stepped in, after these women had organized and done all the spade work. The government step in and say, "Your name is out; we will take it over."
The next letter is from the president of the Ontario association. I shall not read that letter, but shall proceed to the next one sent by the minister. This letter is dated May 4, 1942, and states:
First, I pointed out that the similarity in name between the "division of women's voluntary services" in the Department of National War Services and that under which you have been operating-"Canadian women's voluntary services, (Ontario division)"-is leading to confusion.
There would not have been any confusion if the government had just checked back over their files and found out that the women had registered a month before.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A year before.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, a month before. This came into being in October, 1941, and the women's association was registered in September, 1941. The letter continues:
I wished to indicate, well in advance of the expiration in September of your registration under the War Charities Act, that it will not be possible for you to continue to be registered under your present name. 1 did not say, nor did I wish to convey the idea that, under some other appropriate name, your organization will be refused registration under that act.
The organization in Ontario is composed of these different organizations:
British Empire Ex-Service Women's Association
Canadian Auxiliary Territorial Services Canadian Business and Professional Women's Club
Canadian Federation of University Women Canadian Mothercraft Society Canadian Women's Service Force Children's Aid Society Church of Christ Disciples Community Welfare Council of Ontario Inc. Coronation Unit of Ex-Service Women Eastern Canada Region, International Association of Soroptimist Clubs East York Women's Service Corps English Speaking Union Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario Federation of Women Teachers Association of Ontario
Grand Camp, Daughters of Scotland in Canada
Overseas Nursing Sisters Association for Ontario
Grand Lodge, Daughters of England Benevolent Society Hadassah Organization
Ladies' Auxiliaries to the Order of Scottish Clans
Ladies' Orange Benevolent Association Ontario Dental Nurses and Assistants Ontario Provincial Command Ladies' Auxiliary, Canadian Legion Ontario Provincial Council, Canadian Daughters League
Order of the Eastern Star Protestant Women's Federation of Canada Provincial Branch, Canadian Ladies' Golf Union
Provincial Chapter of Ontario, Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire Queen's University Alumnae Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario St. John's Ambulance Society Silver Cross Women of the British Empire The Baptist Women's War Services Auxiliary The Canadian Girl Guides Association The Canadian Jewish Congress The Catholic Women's League of Canada The Council of Jewish Women The Girls' Friendly Society The Inner Wheel
The Lyceum Club and Women's Art Association of Canada The Maccabees
The Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations
The Ontario Women's Liberal Association The Rebekah Assembly of Ontario The Salvation Army
The	Women's	Missionary	Society	of	the
Church of England
The	Women's	Missionary	Society	of	thePresbyterian Church in Canada The	Women's	Missionary	Society	of	the
United Church of Canada Toronto Dietetic Association Women's Central Conservative Association of Toronto
Women's Christian Temperance Union Women's Committee of the Navy League Women's Land Brigade Auxiliary Women's Law Association of Ontario Zonta Clubs of Canada Provincial Council of Women The Polish Group
All voluntary services. Mrs. Roberts, chairman of Canadian women's voluntary services for Ontario, wrote a letter to the Minister of National War Services, and this is part of what she said:
Your department says "perhaps it would be a good idea to have some courses for emergencies set up and when the emergencies arise give the courses of training." This programme of preparedness which we have adopted is what your department regards as "overstimulation of volunteer effort."
A consideration of these differences has shown us that there seems no way of avoiding the conclusion which you had come to as stated in both your letters to me, of April 27 and May 4, that the approach of our organization in the coordination of women's volunteer effort is the exact opposite to yours.

War Appropriation-War Services
Miss Margaret Hyndman, K.C., and Mrs. Murdoch MacKenzie came to Ottawa and saw Mrs. West and Miss Held, and this is part of their report:
(1)	That the government's plan is to have women's war work done in communities by social agencies;
(2)	That no war work should be undertaken in a community until these social agencies who have their "ear to the ground" as to the needs, give the word "go";
(3)	That women should not be trained for emergencies now, nor their free time utilized for war work except such "unspectacular" (as she called them) -
That would be Mrs. West.
-and relatively unimportant jobs as salvage and price control enforcement. Nor should they be encouraged to organize their lives to have free time which can be so utilized.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Whose report is that?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the report of Miss Hyndman, K.C. That is what Mrs. West told them when they were here in Ottawa. Further on she says:
To use Mrs. West's words it "overstimulates the will of the volunteer to serve."
These women have carried on, as I said before, absolutely without any charge on the government. I do not know much about what Toronto has done, but in Peterborough sixty-one typists gave 1,244 hours of service in connection with the mobilization of the Prince of Wales regiment. Our women volunteered to supervise the extra children that have been thrust upon the Children's Aid Society; they have atended classes in home nursing; they are driving cars; they go to the training centre in Peterborough three evenings a week; they do playground supervision work and welfare department work; they take part in the Red Cross and community fund drives, and many other activities. I should like to know from the minister just why he decided to do away with this association after it was formed, and why he did not tell the ladies at that time.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The question put by the hon. member for Peterborough West cannot be answered in a few minutes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do not care how long the minister takes as long as he gives these ladies a clear and proper explanation of why this was done.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I shall do my best. It is most unfortunate that this controversy has arisen. One of the functions of the Department of National War Services as set out in the governing act of the department is the coordination of voluntary assistance. It was

felt desirable to recognize in a special way the splendid work that the women of Canada are doing in their communities. Since the women of Canada are making an important contribution to the war effort in a field which only the women can fill effectively, it was thought desirable to promote the coordination of the voluntary assistance being given by these women in different parts of Canada.
We were faced with two alternative courses of action. One course that was suggested was that we should ask all the national organizations such as the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, the Canadian Red Cross Society, the National Council of Women, the Catholic women's organization and other representative women's organizations to send representatives to Ottawa to attend a national conference to discuss the advisability of establishing a national organization for the promotion of the coordination of women's voluntary services throughout Canada. After a discussion with leading women in different parts of the country that course was abandoned on the ground that the various national women's organizations across Canada were doing their work excellently in their own respective fields and that there was no need of an additional women's organization of a national nature.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who made that decision?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I made it.


Mr. LOCKHART:: What organizations did the minister consult?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I discussed the matter with a great many women in Canada upon whose judgment I relied. I did not discuss it with the national organizations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With
individuals?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: With individual people whose judgment I valued. There was practically no dissenting opinion on the subject. The view that was suggested and the view that was ultimately adopted was that if we were going to promote the coordination of women's voluntary services in an effective manner, we would have to do so on a community basis in the communities where the women would actually do the work. Therefore, as the basis for the coordination of women's voluntary services in this country, we adopted the principle of community solidarity. We decided that whatever we would do in promoting the coordination of women's voluntary services would be on a community basis.

War Appropriation-War Services


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is it not on a community basis now?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I did not interrupt my hon. friend. I shall be glad to answer any questions if he will just allow me to continue.
We came to the view also that the leadership among women is actually in the community, that the effective work that women can do is the work that they can do in their own community, and that is the general view. So we adopted as the basis of our whole organization the basis of community solidarity. It was thought at one time that we would merely divide our division of voluntary services and create a subdivision of it for the promotion of women's voluntary services coordination, but the view prevailed that the activities of the women of Canada in the community field deserved special recognition, and we set up an independent division of my department known as the women's voluntary services division. The purposes of that division are set out in the order in council which created the division. They are as follows:
To promote the coordination of the voluntary efforts of the women of Canada and to encourage the organization of women's voluntary services on a community basis with a view to their best utilization for the needs of their community, the maintenance of national morale and the furtherance of the welfare of the nation.
That is the purpose of the women's voluntary services division.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is too bad you have not given it some other name.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The hon. member for
Peterborough has stressed the unfortunate matter of the name. That is unfortunate, I am prepared to admit, but I am not prepared to admit that it is not a good name for the division of my department. As a matter of fact, the decision with regard to the name had really been taken long before the actual order in council went through. If the name is an appropriate name for the division which, after all, is concerned with the promotion of the coordination of women's activities across Canada, it is more important that the name should be allocated to that division than to an organization which at the present time is purely provincial.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But their name is
"Canadian".


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, and it is confusing
because they are not Canadian in their operations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They
attempted to make it national, did they not?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is a provincial organization, and it is the view of the department that there is no need for an additional organization of either a national or provincial nature.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then why did you start
one? They were there first.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The dispute is really over the matter of registration under the War Charities Act, which enables them to raise money.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
the legal aspect.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is all that is cancelled, their registration under the War Charities Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have you not told them that they cannot use this name?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not under the War Charities Act. It is unfortunate that this has arisen but their objectives are contrary to the objectives that have generally been accepted by the department and by a great many others across Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why does the minister say that? I do not understand that that is correct.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not think there is much doubt about it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The very organization you are putting out is by far the most important voluntary organization all across Canada.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The view that was taken in the department was that if we were to get the most out of women's voluntary services, the wisest thing to do would be to promote the organization of these women's organizations in the community.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: On a paid basis.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are paying salaries. That is not voluntary.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: So that all the organizations in the community will become, so far as possible, part and parcel of that community solidarity, for it is in the community that the women will actually do their work. One of the ideas was that we would promote in the larger centres where there was not one already in existence a central volunteer bureau.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Paying anyone anything?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Many of them pay salaries to some of their officers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the particular organization we are speaking of pay salaries?

2882	COMMONS
War Appropriation-War Services


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: It does not.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I know a good number of central volunteer bureaux where some persons do get some remuneration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the Canadian women's voluntary services?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No. It is not organized on a community basis at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is just quibbling.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It covers not only Toronto but six or seven territories outside, in Ontario.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is not organized on a community basis at all. The community activity has to take into account, if it is really to be a community enterprise, all the important community organizations, and it must of necessity include the charitable and social welfare agencies because they are the core of the community activities; it is necessary so far as possible to bring those agencies together in the community. One objective was to promote the establishment of a central volunteer bureau where all the women in the community could register their willingness to engage in some kind of voluntary effort. That central volunteer bureau will become a pool or reservoir of voluntary aid, so that any organization in the community that wishes to do so can go to the central volunteer bureau and say that it needs additional assistance for this or that activity, which might be a social welfare or a social agency activity of one kind or another. It might be a war loan campaign or a salvage campaign. It might take one of twenty or thirty different forms; but there would be that reservoir of voluntary women of the community, effective not only for the purposes of the war, but also for the purposes of the postwar period. We felt that was much sounder than to establish another provincial or national organization.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But they were in the field.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They were not really active.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes. They had a licence before the order in council was passed.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They were registered
under the War Charities Act, which allowed them to raise money.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely, but they were in the field first.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And it is that registration, under the War Charities Act, under that name, which will be cancelled.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Had they not arranged with subsidiary organizations in the case of the bombing of cities, particularly Toronto, to take children from Toronto?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They can take on that activity; there is nothing to bar them from doing so. There are a number of fields of useful work in which they can engage. The name, however, is confusing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not confusing. You are taking it away from them.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: We are taking away a name that is appropriate to the activities which our department is seeking to promote.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At a
salary to the director of $400 a month and expenses.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: We combed the whole country; and you can ask almost any woman you like who understands working in communities, and you will find the most wholehearted approval of the appointment of Mrs. West and Miss Held.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What is the assistant paid?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I believe it is $3,000.
Mr. MacNICOL, And expenses.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Travelling expenses.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How much?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Actual out-of-pocket
expenses.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not see how you can expect the ladies to work under a couple of paid officials like these.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They are not going to
work under these officials.


Richard Burpee Hanson: These
officials will direct them.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They will not direct them either; they will give guidance and encouragement. The whole basis of the community solidarity set-up of women's voluntary services is that it shall spring from women in the community.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It had already sprung from them.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No. This particular
organization which my hon. friend mentions is not using the organizations that are in the

Unemployment Insurance
community. It rejects a number of them and does not want to have anything to do with some of them.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Which ones?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The social agencies and
the social welfare organizations are the heart of the community, and you cannot have a community organized on the basis of community solidarity if you exclude the persons who are interested and concerned in that part of the community which is in need of social aid. They are an essential part of any community solidarity set-up. The reason is that you cannot have a sound community development, you cannot have integrity of the community, without looking after all the people in the community and seeing that those in need of assistance get it in times of war as well as in times of peace.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And
that is exactly what this organization has done.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: This organization is not
interested in the social welfare agencies. It is working apart from them, and our view of community solidarity is that all organizations in the community must be taken into account. The social agencies are not approved by this organization, and that is one of the reasons why I am of opinion that the views of this organization are opposite to the views that actuate the division of my department.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The division of your
department; that is another thing altogether.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is one of the
reasons for that statement. I do not know that there is more to add to what I have said. There is a field for this organization, and we welcome all organizations; but there is no need for an additional national organization, or a provincial organization which will become national. Effective work will be done in the community. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to- sit again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has occupied all the time until 11 o'clock, but there is another side to the story and it is too late now to put it on the record. These ladies were in the field before the minister and his department ever took any action in the matter. It goes back to 1939 when Miss Hyndman and Senator Fallis-


Thomas Vien: There is a motion
before the chair which is not debatable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We will
hear about it to-morrow.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 29, 1942