1945-10-31

Mr. SPEAKER:: With reference to the remarks made yesterday by the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) regarding the report in the debates and in Votes and Proceedings of my decision on the introduction of the bill to amend the Judges Act, sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), there is nothing unusual in the decision not being recorded in exactly the same words in these two reports.
It sometimes happens that the authorities are not at hand when a ruling has to be given from the chair, and it is necessarily given in a summary manner. It is afterwards reported in a less condensed form in Votes and Proceedings, which is the only official report of the things done and passed in the House of Commons, while Hansard is the official report of speeches.
The same practice obtains in courts of justice when a judge renders a judgment from the bench and then writes it up for the record. The main point is that the decision must not be altered. In this instance both Votes and Proceedings and debates report that the introduction of the bill was not permitted because it involved the expenditure of money. It cannot be said that my decision debars members from moving reductions in committee of supply, for that committee considers estimates brought down by the government and recommended by the crown. The government in that case takes the initiative.
Under section 54 of the British North America Act, no part of the public revenue can be appropriated to any purpose that has not been recommended by his excellency, and under standing order 60 no resolution for any public aid or charge upon the people can be presented on the day entered upon, but it must be adjourned and then referred to the committee of the whole. It does not matter whether the charge is an original amount, an increase or a reduction, no private member can introduce a money bill and skip the submission of a resolution to the committee of the whole.
Even if the bill were sponsored by the government it could not be introduced without a previous resolution. Mr. Speaker White decided in 1892, and his decision has held good ever since, that an amendment cannot be put when it disposes of the public revenue without the recommendation of the crown as required by the British North America Act of 1867.
The effect of the passage of the bill as presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would be immediate obligation to pay; no future legislation would be necessary, and therefore the authority cited last night by the hon. member does not apply. It is needless to add that any comparison with this bill and the committee of supply is irrelevant, and private members will be free in the future as they always have been to move any reduction in, and even to reject, any of the estimates brought down by the government.
I hope it will be understood that I am not now giving a decision on the introduction of the bill. This I did yesterday. I am now only making a statement in pursuance of the remarks made yesterday by the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The house I am sure will readily understand that there being no motion before the Chair, the incident is closed and the house shall now proceed with its business.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the
Opposition):	Mr. Speaker, may I take this
opportunity to thank Your Honour for your usual courteous consideration of the point I raised yesterday. As for myself I accept your ruling. If I interpret what you had to say correctly, I think the house will be pleased to note that your ruling will not interfere with any private member moving in committee of supply for the reduction of items of expenditures.

War Crimes Tribunal


Mr. KNOWLES:: I wonder if I may place on the record at this point-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -the ruling at page 457 of Beauchesne-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. gentleman will admit that the Speaker has not given permission to any hon. members to speak on this matter; there is no motion before the house. I made my ruling yesterday. I thought it was my duty to give some explanation to the house in pursuance of the remarks which were made yesterday by the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I now ask the house to resume its business.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your honour gave a ruling without giving us a chance to speak.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not particularly objecting to Your Honour's decision, but I do think that when a decision of this nature is made, which carries some implications, and may be used as a precedent in the future, some discussion should be permitted on it.


James Horace King: I would remind the hon. member that I did not give a decision this afternoon; I gave my decision yesterday. I thought it was only fair to the house that I should make a statement. We shall now continue with the business of the house.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. McLure be substituted for that of Mr. Harris (Danforth) on the committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: I should like to inform the house that preliminary proceedings have now been taken for the trial of Brigade-fuhrer

(Major-General) Kurt Meyer, Commander of the 12th SS Panzer division (Hitler Jngend) during the fighting in Normandy in June, July and August of 1944. Major General Meyer will be tried by a Canadian military court convened pursuant to the war crimes regulations (Canada) of which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) informed the house on September 13, 1945.
Meyer will stand trial on seven charges having to do with the murder of forty-eight Canadian prisoners of war during the fighting in which the 3rd Canadian infantry division was engaged in the vicinity of Caen in June, 1944. He is charged specifically with having directed his troops to deny quarter in contravention of the laws and usages of war; to have been directly responsible, while a regimental or brigade commander, for the killing of seven prisoners at his headquarters; and to have been indirectly responsible for the deaths of eleven other prisoners at his headquarters, for twenty-three shot at the village of Authie, and also for seven later executed at Mouen after he had become divisional commander.
Meyer has been taken into custody of the Canadian military authorities and placed, pending trial, in the charge of Lieutenant Colonel R. P. Clark, D.S.O., commanding officer of the Royal Winnipeg rifles, Canadian army occupation force in Germany. Lieutenant Colonel B. J. S. Macdonald, O.B.E., E.D., head of the war crimes unit at Canadian military headquarters London, will be the chief prosecutor at the trial which is expected to begin on November 28, 1945, thus allowing Meyer four weeks in which to prepare his defence. Colonel Peter Wright, O.B.E., has been detailed by the Canadian army to act as defence counsel.
The members of the military court will be: Major General H. W. Foster, C.B.E., D.S.O., president, and members Major General R. H. Keefler, C.B.E., D.S.O., E.D., and Brigadiers
I.	S. Johnston, D.S.O., E.D., H. A. Sparling, D.S.O., H. P. Bell-Irving, D.S.O., O.B.E., with Brigadiers T. G. Gibson, D.S.O., and M. P. Bogert, D.S.O., O.B.E. as waiting members. The judge advocate will be Lieutenant Colonel W. B. Bredin, D.J.A.G., Canadian occupation force. The trial will be held at the marine barracks in Aurich, in the north western portion of the Canadian area of occupation in Germany.
*

Questions



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LENNART) :
1.	Are Canadian warships refitted at Canadian naval dockyards on a contract basis or on a cost plus basis?
2.	If not, upon what basis are these refits carried out?
Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 1.	No.
2.	Canadian warships are refitted1 at Canadian naval dockyards under direct supervision of the local naval management and the costs of refits cover only the material and labour time.


MUTUAL AID-STERLING AREA COUNTRIES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What were the sterling area countries referred to by the Minister of Finance on September 7, 1945, at pages 11 and 12 of Hansard?
2.	What were the "purely temporary expedients" referred to therein and in favour of what countries were they used?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1 and 2. The sterling area countries which received- Mutual Aid from Canada included the United Kingdom, Australi-a, New Zealand, India and the crown colonies in the West Indies. All of these areas are no-w buying supplies from Canad-a, either paying directly in cash or through undertaking to reimburse the government of Canada for expenditures made on their -behalf.
The government of Canada is purchasing supplies in Canad-a as the agent of the governments of the United- Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and India in response to requests from those governments. These are the countries in the sterling area receiving such assistance, and the question appears to relate only to the sterling area. Similar action is being taken, however, it may -be added, on -behalf of France, the Netherlands and the U.S.S.R. The government of Canada is assuming temporarily the costs of paying for these supplies it buys as agent and the governments of the other countries concerned have undertaken to reimburse the government for the expenditures so incurred. This was the principal method of postponing payment to which reference was made in the statement of the Minister of Finance on which this question was based. The government takes such action under the authority of section 3 of the War Appropriation Act, 1945.
The other "purely temporary expedients" contemplated in that statement and put into effect have consisted only in purchasing some time in advance the sterling exchange required to meet disbursements of the Canadian government in the sterling area, such as the pay of Canadian servicemen. The effect of such action is to increase temporarily the Canadian dollars being received by the United Kingdom exchange control and-, of course, there will be a corresponding reduction later when these balances are disbursed. This expedient provides dollars directly to the United Kingdom, but other countries of the sterling area benefit through being able to purchase these dollars from the United Kingdom for sterling.


HOUSING-EX-SERVICEMEN-OTTAWA PROJECTS
Mr. STEPHENSON:: 1.	What acreage of land was purchased for the erection of houses for returned soldiers at the corner of Carling avenue and Merivale road in the township of Nepean near the city of Ottawa?
2.	What pricfe was paid for the land purchased, and from whom was it purchased?
3.	Were there any buildings or other improvements on the land so purchased at the time of the purchase?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	29-21 acres.
2.	(a) $40,000 cash, (b) Mr. August Mar-tineau, 372 Piccadilly Avenue, Ottawa, Ont. Mr. Martineau assumed the responsibility of moving tenants and all buildings on the property for which he is to receive $3,000 and two power lines for which he is to receive $2,000.
3.	Yes. A three storey brick house, a barn and some sheds. These, however, remained the property of the former owner of the land who agreed to remove them and give the department vacant possession.


BRITISH WAR BRIDES
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	When Canadian service men are discharged after return to Canad-a, do their wives still in Britain receive dependents' allowance?
2.	If not, are moneys granted in aid to wives still in Britain, considered as a loan and deductible from future gratuity payments earned by a discharged soldier?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes, provided the wife has made application for transportation to Canada.
2.	Answered by No. 11. Any assistance granted by the dependents board of trustees at any time was never deductible.
167S
Questions as Orders for Returns
iommons


HOUSING-EX-SERVICEMEN-BUILDING MATERIALS
Mr. LOCKHART:: What is the total value of building materials frozen in Canada for the building of veterans' homes in Canada?


Mr. McILRAITH:: No building materials are frozen for the building of veterans' homes in Canada. Priority assistance is given, however, to veterans' projects to enable them to obtain building materials. This assistance is being given in such a way that supplies are provided as they are required and not before they are required.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. BENTLEY:: .	1. Do provisions of the National Housing Act
apply in all of Saskatchewan?
2. If not, what areas are excluded and why?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McKAY:: 1.	What steps have been taken by the government to implement the recommendations made in the 1938 report of the royal commission to investigate the penal system ?
2.	Are the following officials on the staff of the federal penitentiary at Portsmouth: (a) full time physician; (b) a psychiatrist?
3.	If so, what was the date of the appointment, and is the appointee on full or part-time employment?
4.	What qualifications are required for the position of matron or guard at the women's penitentiary at Portsmouth?
5.	What is the initial and the maximum salaries of the above named employees exclusive of living allowances?
6.	What has been done by the government fo establish a Borstal institution in any of the federal penitentiaries, and to what extent are youthful offenders segregated from hardened criminals in our federal penal institutions?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Return tabled.


SURPLUS WAR ASSETS-MOTION PICTURE PROJECTORS, ETC.
Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assmiboia):: 1.	How many 16-mm. and 35-mm. projectors used in Avar service training had the government on hand on V-J day?
2.	How many have been declared surplus?
3.	Will these be made available to public institutions?
4.	If so, w'hen and on what basis?
5.	What is being done with the libraries of
the auxiliary war services?

6.	Will these books be made available to adult educational institutions or schools and other public bodies sponsoring education?
7.	What was the value of machine tools on hand belonging to the government on Y-J day?
8.	What quantity has been declared surplus to date?
9.	Will public institutions be given priority on these surpluses?
10.	If so, how should schools proceed to get such equipment?
11.	Was H.M.C.S. Assiniboine sold? If so, to whom and at what price?
12.	How many Fairmile motor launches have been declared surplus?
13.	What was the original cost of each launch?
14.	To whom has each launch been sold?
15.	What is the sale price in each case?


CIVIL SERVICE-EMPLOYMENT OP WOMEN
Mrs. STRUM:: 1.	In what year were women first employed in the civil service?
2.	How many women are now in the employment of the civil service; how many men?
3.	How* many women are heads of departments?
4.	How many women are deputy ministers?
5.	How many men hold permanent positions paying $2,500 .or over?
6.	How many women hold permanent positions paying $2,500 or over?
7.	How many women, permanent employees of the civil service receive $1,000 per year or less; how many receive $1,500 a year or less, how many receive $1,800 per year or less, how many receive over $1,800 per year?
8.	How many men receive $1,800 per year or less, how many men receive $1,800 or more per year?


MOTOR BOAT &quot;KIPAWO&quot;
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	During what years did the motor boat Kipauo operate under federal government subsidy between the ports of Parrsboro-Kingsport-Wolfville, Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the subsidy paid each year by the federal government?
3.	Why was subsidy withdrawn and service discontinued ?
4.	Did the government approve the lease, charter or sale of the Kipawo for operation in Newfoundland or elsewhere during the war?
5.	Under w'hose ownership or control has this boat been operating?
6.	Will the government have the Kipawo or a suitable ferry boat made available to interested citizens at Parrsboro, Kingsport and Wolfville to resume the service discontinued during the' war?
7.	When was a ferry service first operated by the federal or provincial government on this route?

Orders in Council Minutes



PUBLIC SERVICE-APPOINTMENTS OUTSIDE CIVIL SERVICE ACT

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: -How many government employees, exempted by statute or orders in council from the provisions of the Civil Service Act respecting appointments, have been appointed in each department, since 1940,	(a) by departments
direct; (b) by minutes of the treasury board; (c) by orders in council?



SURPLUS WAR ASSETS-CLOTHING, ETC.

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	How many suits of battledress, greatcoats, shoes, socks and blankets, does the army possess in Canada at the present time?
2.	How many suits of battledress, greatcoats, shoes, socks and blankets, does the army possess in the United Kingdom and Europe at the present time?
3.	Has any provision been made to utilize these materials for the relief of the European.
[DOT] people through organizations such as U NR It A ?
4.	If so, how much of these materials have been utilized for these purposes at the present time?
5.	How much of these materials are intended to be utilized for these purposes in the immediate future?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. KNOWLES;
For a copy of all correspondence between the deputy minister or other officials of the Department of Labour and the advisory boards of the department, dated since V-E day, dealing with the question of suitable employment.
Mr. MITCHELL:: Might I suggest to the hon. member that he withdraw this motion, in view of the fact that the correspondence referred to is privileged. It has always been considered by this House of Commons that correspondence between officials of a department or between officials and the minister is privileged and cannot be laid on the table of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would rather have the motion stand at least until I can have a few words with the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let it stand in the meantime.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; stand.
Mr. COLDWELL; The minister agreed.
Mr. MITCHELL; No; I agreed that it be dropped and I would have a few words with my hon. friend.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to have the motion adopted or dropped?
Some hon. MEMBERS; Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: May I suggest that it might meet the wishes of all hon. members if the motion, though definitely out of order, were allowed to stand, because the hon. member may wish to rephrase it or to consult the minister in regard to it. I suggest, therefore, that the motion stand.
Motion stands.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL AND TREASURY BOARD MINUTES

Mr. BRACKEN:: For a copy of all orders in. council and treasury board minutes approved by His Excellency the Governor General since the 6th day of September, 1945.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting Prime Minister) :: This motion raises an important question of principle, and I should like to say a few words on it. A motion of this kind has never been passed in this house, though similar motions have been made on at least two previous occasions. Nor can I find that a motion of this kind has ever been passed in any other parliamentary assembly in the British empire, though there may have been exceptions in local assemblies. The motion is for copies of all orders in council passed since the 6th day of September, 1945. That is to say, it is a request for authority to obtain copies of all orders in council passed within the last two months and, in addition, all treasury board decisions and minutes approved by the governor in council. It does not specify the particular subject or subjects in relation to which my hon. friend desires information. It does not refer to any particular class of orders. It is simply an unlimited request for all orders in council that have been passed.
In the first place I may state that to comply with an order of this kind would involve a great deal of expense and a great deal of labour on the part of the public service. It might establish a precedent which might be very serious if it were followed on subsequent occasions. With regard to the authorities on the subject, it will be found that there is no mention of anything of the kind by writers on matters of parliamentary practice and procedure. Hon. members will find the following reference in Todd's Parliamentary Government in England, volume 1, page 440:
Considerations of public policy, and a due regard to the interests of the state, occasionally demand, however, that information sought for by members of the legislature should be withheld, at the discretion and upon the general
Orders in Council Minutes

responsibility of ministers. This principle is systematically recognized in all parliamentary transactions: were it otherwise, it would be impossible to carry on the government with safety and honour. Whenever it is declared, by the responsible servant of the crown, that any information sought for in parliament could not be supplied without inconvenience to the public service, or for other sufficient reasons, the house refrains from insisting upon its production.
The two previous occasions in this house when similar motions were made were in 1926 and 1936. In 1926 Sir Henry Drayton, I believe then acting leader of the opposition, made a motion very similar to that which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) is making to-day. It was for a return of all orders in council passed in the current year 1925. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) at that time said, in reply to the request:	.
I would ask my hon. friend if he really desires all that he is requesting here. As my hon. friend knows, there are a great many orders in council that are purely routine orders, having to do with regulations, promotions, transfers of land, property and so forth, and to bring down all that is asked for here I am afraid would mean a very large and quite unnecessary expense. If my hon. friend would indicate the orders he has in mind there would be no objection.
There was some discussion at that time, and if Hansard is consulted it will be seen that the Prime Minister indicated to Sir Henry Drayton that if he. would attend at the office of the clerk of the privy council the index of the orders in council would be made available to him and he might indicate the orders in which he was interested. There is no disposition at all to withhold any orders, if some selection is made in accordance with the subjects in which the opposition is interested. In this case, however, the great mass of treasury board minutes and other decisions, as well as the orders in council, I am told would entail the employment of at least six stenographers, and that it would be two months before the copies of these orders in council and treasury board minutes could be made.
The second occasion was in 1936, when Mr. Bennett, then leader of the opposition, moved the following motion:
For a copy of all orders in council passed since the 23rd day of October. 1935. excepting appendices and treasury board minutes and excepting orders already tabled.
The discussion will be found in Hansard of March 23, 1936. That was a much more limited motion than the one we are now considering, but the Prime Minister took exception to it and the motion was negatived, 
apparently not on division, after some discussion in the house between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition.
I do not know that I can say much more about the matter except that as acting Prime Minister I would not like to have a new precedent created for the blanket production of all orders in council covering a certain period. Rather I should prefer to have the effort made that was made in 1926 and again in 1936. If the leader of the opposition will himself go or designate somebody to go and look at the index of orders in council, make a selection and then make a motion covering the matters which are really of importance or of interest to the opposition, every effort will be made to meet their desires. It is rather hard to explain what a great number of very small matters indeed are covered by orders in council, relating to a vast multiplicity of details.
As I have said already, I would not like to consent, nor do I think I can consent, as acting Prime Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister, to the creation of a precedent here which would be something entirely new in this or any. other parliamentary assembly. I am willing to let the motion stand and have the hon. gentleman consider what I have said, or I would ask him to withdraw the motion and adopt the course I have indicated. If that is not agreeable to him, however, I am afraid I will have to take the position that we cannot agree to the motion.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker__


James Horace King: The house will permit me to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that standing order-51 provides:
Notices of motion for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shall be placed by the Clerk on the order paper. . . .
Of course it is the privilege of the leader o>
the opposition, who moved this motion t. reply to the remarks of the minister, but think I should remind the house that th_-motion is not debatable.


John Bracken: Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker. When you rose I was afraid you were going to deny me the privilege you had allowed the leader of the government, in which case of course I should have had to object.
The acting Prime Minister has objected to the adoption of this motion on three grounds, as I understand his remarks he says that it will establish a precedent which has never been followed before and that a similar motion was moved on two occasions and for various

Orders in Council Minutes
reasons not passed. He instanced one occasion in 1926 when a whole year's orders in council were asked for. and another in 1936 when orders in council covering a period of six months were sought. He objects to the present motion on the ground that it establishes a precedent.
Then he objects on the ground that it does not ask for specific orders in council. It does not. I shall deal with that later. But I may say here and now that, with regard to treasury minutes, I have no objection at all to this house omitting them from the motion, if that will help us to make progress with the passage of the motion.
The third ground of objection was that of costs. The minister says that it might take six stenographers a period of two months to do the work required.
I had hoped the government might accept this motion, but I was aware that on one or two previous occasions motions of a similar type, but of a much wider extent, had been denied. Since the acting leader of the government has been allowed to state his case, I should like to state mine briefly, and I hope I can do so in five minutes.
I placed the motion on the order paper for a definite and very important purpose. It is a vital principle, which no member will dare to challenge, that this House of Commons has the full and inalienable right to a disclosure of all actions of the executive. It has the right and the duty to review and pass upon all such actions. Except in some minor matters where the king's prerogative has not been abridged, the executive or cabinet acts properly only under authority delegated by this parliament. Thus, in order that we may be aware of the actions of the executiye, I have placed this motion on the order paper.
This is not a fishing expedition. We think that, as representatives of the people, we ought to know what is going on. Under these various statutes power is given the government to pass orders in council. In a return tabled a little while ago the government let us know that sixty odd thousand orders in council and sixty odd thousand treasury minutes had been passed in the last six years. We think we ought to know the substance of those orders in council. I would repeat that this is not a fishing expedition. As representatives of the people we wish to know and we have the right to know what the government does by order in council.
If this high court of parliament is unaware of all the actions of the executive, not only is it deprived of its rights, but it is placed in a position where it cannot adequately carry out its solemn and responsible duties.
This is not an idle gesture on my part. I am not seeking any general warrant to search the files of the privy council to discover something which might be of political advantage.
I am seeking to restore to this house a right and a duty which it must possess and carry out if our representatitve institutions are to survive. For so long as I hold this seat I am determined to ensure, in so far as lies within my power, that Canada is governed by this House of Commons, by the elected representatives of the Canadian people, and not by the secret diplomacy of the council chamber. That, Mr. Speaker, I repeat is my motive in placing this motion on the order paper.
The greatest virtue of democracy is that it is conducted publicly, under the full scrutiny of the people. During war years we submitted to what amounted practically to cabinet dictatorship. Surely there can be no grounds for parliament's not knowing what that dictatorship did.
In many acts of parliament there are sections which require that all orders in council passed pursuant to those acts shall be laid on the table within a specified period of time. In some cases parliament has neglected to make such a provision. But that fact certainly should not be taken as a reason for refusing to table orders in council.
The acting leader of the government has hinted that if I would ask for specific orders in council they would be tabled. That does not meet the situation at all. I have no means of knowing what orders in council have been passed under the different authorizing acts. No member of parliament, other than a cabinet minister, can have that knowledge.
Does the acting leader of the government suggest that we must go on fishing expeditions into different government departments to gain information which ought to be available to parliament and to the public, at least upon request? Does he mean to suggest that such a course should be adopted, when he knows as well as I do that we have not only the right but the duty to review all these orders in council, and when he knows perfectly well that we have no means of knowing how many or of what character these orders in council are?
We can guess the character of some of them. One was tabled the other day, only after the press had learned about it somewhere. Some others were tabled as a result of an order of the house passed on a motion moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker). Among other things, sessional paper 188, dated October 22, had this to say-and we were not on a fishing expedition then either, but when this kind of thing comes out I think we ought to have the privilege of seeing all
16S2

Orders in Council Minutes
the orders in council the government has passed, particularly those passed during the eight weeks we have been in session.
P C. 13962: That it is by reason of the war necessary for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada that the salary of the chairman and other members of the civil service commission be increased as hereinafter recommended.
And there follows a recommendation of an increase of $2,000 in the salary of the chairman and $1,000 each for the other members of the commission. This is under the War Measures Act-"by reason of the war," it says, these increases are necessary. Another one is dated May 31 of this year-P.C. 2/3962. One clause reads:
That it is by reason of the war necessary fcr the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada that the salary of the chairman and the other members of the Canadian pension commission be increased as hereinafter recommended.
And again they allow an increase of $2,000 for the chairman and $1,000 for each of the other members of the commission. That is under the War Measures Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: W'hat is wrong with that?


John Bracken: I say that is not the proper way or place to make provisions of that kind.
As I said, there are numerous examples of parliament's learning of important orders in council long after such orders have been passed. Let us take only one example. On May 7, 1945, a very important order in council was passed dealing with Eldorado mines, and an amending order on September 5. When did parliament learn about these orders in council? Not until October 25, just a few days ago, five or six months after the first of those orders in council was passed. And even then we learned of it only after the press had discovered it, and the government only then thought it wise to table the order in council in the house.
In this motion I have limited my request to orders in council passed since September 6, 1945, the date upon which this parliament assembled less than eight weeks ago. My reason is that I believe it to be of particular importance for us to know to what extent the government is acting by order in council, at a time when the house is in session, in respect of questions about which we should have knowledge. I repeat that the house is entitled to have the substance of all orders in council.
The minister who has just spoken, the acting leader of the 'government, has. quoted precedents which he alleges uphold the position

he takes. I say that you cannot use precedents as an argument for meeting unprecedented situations. It is an unprecedented situation when under the War Measures Act and other measures 90,000 orders in eouneil and treasury minutes have been passed in a period of six years and are even now being passed, as the minister says, at a rate which will necessitate six stenographers working for two months to copy what have been passed in the last eight weeks.
I am not interested in maintaining bad precedents. If parliament made a mistake in years gone by, no matter who was the prime minister or what party was in power, now is the time and the opportunity to improve such procedure. The acting leader of the government has raised the question of the cost of obtaining the material I have requested. Surely this argument is not advanced seriously when this government is now spending $14,000,000 a day, or $5,000,000,000 this year. Surely the argument that it will require half a dozen stenographers working for two months is not advanced seriouslj'. What cost is entailed in having an extra copy of every order in council made at the time it is approved and held in readiness to be laid on the table of the house at the appropriate time?
I strongly urge the government to reconsider the stand it has taken. It is inconceivable that the government will deny to the people's representatives the knowledge which is required if this house is to perform its duty. If the government refuses this request, my only course is to submit the motion to the judgment of the house. I appeal to all hon. members, wherever they may sit, to join with me in asserting and establishing a vital principle, a principle without which we cannot have responsible government. To hon. members who sit to your right I make a particular appeal. The fate of the government is not at stake in this motion. Let us join together in this instance in asserting the rights of parliament and the rights of the peoples' representatives in order to avoid leaving the government open to the charge that it is either a dictatorship or a bureaucracy or an oligarchy rather than the thoroughly representative and responsible institution which it ought to be and which the Canadian people want it to be.


John Bracken: I was paired with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted I would have supported the mover of
Abbott	Cleaver
Arsenault	Cloutier
Beaudoin	Cote (Matapedia-
Beaudry	Matane)
Belzile	Cote (St. Johns-
Benidickson	' Iberville-Napiervil
Bertrand (Laurier)	Cote (Verdun)
Bertrand (Prescott)	Croll
Black (Chateauguay-	Dechene
Huntingdon)	Denis
Blanchette	Dion (Lake St. John-
Boivin	Roberval)
Bonnier	Dionne (Beauce)
Bourget	Douglas
Bradette	Emmerson
Breithaupt	F ontaine
Bridges	Fournier (Hull)
Brunelle	Fournier (Maison-
Burton	neuve-Rosemont)
Chevrier	Gariepy
Clark	Gauthier (Nipissing)
Claxton	Gauthier (Portneuf)
this motion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He needs support.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BRYCE:: I was paired with the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROSE:: I was paired-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You have voted.


Mr. BROWN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Henderson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
t684
Privilege-Mr. Bruce


Mr. BAKER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Coyle). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


John Bracken: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, might I ask how the member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) is recorded as having voted?


James Horace King: He is recorded as having voted nay. I had asked that those opposed to the motion will please rise, and I understand that the hon. member for Cartier rose.


Fred Rose: I intended to vote for the motion. Seemingly I rose a bit too soon; I did not rise to vote with those opposed to the mbtion.


James Horace King: The hon. member's vote cannot be changed after it has been recorded.
Mr.- GRAYDON: This is a comedy of errors.



SHOE MANUFACTURERS-SUBSIDIES

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all regulations and directives, dated since September 1, 1939, issued by the wartime prices and trade board and/or by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, governing, (a) the payment of subsidies in connection with the manufacture of boots and shoes, and (b) the refunding of any such subsidies.

QUESTION OF S/ft/ES IN UNITED STATES MARKET
On the orders of the day:


Mr. LEWIS MENARY (Wellington North):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I sent him a copy of it, but in his temporary absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the government give consideration to taking action with the United States which would result in a certain number of cattle being allowed to go to the United States market for sale? This is advisable owing to the heavy marketing of cattle at this season of the year and the situation which exists at various packing plants in Canada where it is impossible to process these cattle.


James Horace King: If the hon. member wishes to put a question it should be brief and to the point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All I can do is to bring the question to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, who is away to-day.


Lewis Menary: Thank you very much.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DiIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre): I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General with regard to the resumption of parcel service to Norway. Numbers of Norwegians are interested in this matter, and I think the minister is in a position to make a statement.
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: I dm pleased to say that, we succeeded in making arrangements with the government of Norway, and that parcels are being received in Norway up to the weight of eleven pounds.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the minister any word regarding an increase in the size of parcels to Great Britain?


Mr. REID:: What about Sweden?


Ernest Bertrand: No, we have no further information to give to the house in respect to parcels weighing more than five pounds. As I said before, this weight is restricted by the postal authorities of Great Britain.


Mr. COCKERAM:: Have representations
been made to the British postal authorities in that regard?


Ernest Bertrand: It is not in order for our government to make representations to Great Britain concerning their postal regulations.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BRUCE REFERENCE TO A STATEMENT OF MR. POULIOT IN DEBATE ON OCTOBER 30

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I rise to a question of privilege. My attention has been called to a statement made yesterday by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) in reference to myself, as reported at page 1649 of Hansard. The hon. member said:
It was a malicious and wicked attempt to deprecate the province of Quebec in the minds of the people of our sister provinces.
I should like to call the attention of the bon, member to the fact that according to the standing orders of the House of Commons, rule 41, a member is not allowed to use

Demobilization-Army
offensive language against any member thereof, and I would ask the hon. member for Temiscouata to withdraw these words.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata) : Well, sir, it is impossible for me to withdraw anything at the request of an anonymous member. If you will look at Hansard you will see no name, therefore, I cannot withdraw for a gentleman whose name does not appear in Hansard.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member definitely referred to me, because in the preceding paragraph, referring to a statement I made in the house some' months ago, he said:
That is what was said right here in this house by the hon. member for Parkdale.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: It is a shameful thing.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: If that does not refer to me, I do not know to whom it refers. I ask the hon. member to withdraw these offensive words.


Mr. POULIOT:: Well, sir, I do not see why I have anything to withdraw for the hon. gentleman, if he is the one who made the statement-


Mr. HOMUTH:: I rise to a point of order-


James Horace King: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. gentleman made the statement, he never withdrew it. I do not see why I should withdraw my statement if the hon. member does not withdraw his.


James Horace King: Order. I have noted the remarks made by the hon. gentleman, and I shall look at Hansard.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Thank you.
[Later:]	.


James Horace King: The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) rose this afternoon on a question of privilege and asked that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) should withdraw some words that he had used during a discussion. I told the hon. member for Parkdale that I would consult Hansard. I have since read Hansard and I find that the words which were used by the hon. member for Temiscouata were said in committee, and as the house is supposed to ignore what goes on in committee unless it is reported to the house by the chairman of the committee, the proper place for the hon. member for Park-dale to raise his point of order will be in committee.



WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, October 30, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures deemed necessary or advisable in consequence of the war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN:: May I say to the committee that we have been considering this resolution generally; are we now prepared to take up the various estimates item by item?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think so, no.


William Ross Macdonald: I believe the minister
has a statement to make. Can we then start on item No. 1?


Mr. GRAYDON:: No.'


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think, Mr. Chairman, that there is a little more general discussion to be had; I do not know. I sensed last night that there were .a number of members who still wanted to make general statements. Perhaps at the outset I might clear up a certain amount of unfinished business arising out of yesterday's proceedings. A number of questions were asked and I am now able to give a good deal, of the information.
The hon. member for Lincoln, and perhaps some others, asked me to give the figures on N.R.M.A. personnel discharged during 1945. These figures by months are as follows: January, 536; February, 450; March, 461; April, 494; May, 588; June, 615; July, 969; August, 1,774; September, 2,942; October, up to the 27th, 2,332, making a total up to October 27 of 11,161. The committee will note that up to the end of May the total was 2,529, and from June 1 to October 27, the total was 8,632. The breakdown, by cause, of discharge of the 8,632 since June 1 is as follows: On compassionate grounds, in which is included those previously out on compassionate or other farm leave, 4,911. That figure includes 2,727 men who were on such leave prior to V-E day. That is the first group. On medical grounds, 2,736; demobilization of those under the age of nineteen, 542; those released to engage in work of national importance, 216; and other grounds, including misconduct, 227.

Demobilization-Army
The hon-. member for Swift Current drew attention to the large proportion of commission ranks granted to the men from the various districts. I have not checked his figures, but I have no doubt that the proportions which he has calculated are correct; but they do not indicate any intent on anyone's part to grant commissions to men from one district and to withhold them from men of other districts. I can assure my hon. friend that there never has been any such policy, and the basis of granting promotions or commissions has been on merit. He drew attention to the large proportion of officers from military district 4, my own district. I have no particular explanation to offer for that, other than to suggest that perhaps it is accounted for by the fact that from this district, in which we have the largest city in Canada, a very large proportion of medical and dental officers would have been drawn, and that might well account for the somewhat large proportion of officer personnel. He also drew attention to the proportion of officers among those enlisted outside Canada. That proportion is high, but I am advised that the numbers are comparatively small, and the reason suggested is that, although we did not enlist many men- outside Canada, we did grant commissions to a certain number of specialist personnel in the United Kingdom, and some of those commissions went to Canadian residents there.
The hon. member for Vancouver South asked for more detail in regard to the N.R.M.A. figures. I was not clear whether the figures I gave him included those in ad^ jacen-t territories. They did. Although I said "in Canada", the figure I gave of 33,207 as of October 15 did include N.R.M.A. personnel in Jamaica and adjacent territories.


Alan Cockeram: How many are in
Jamaica?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am going to give the figures, if my hon. friend1 will wait a minute. If I may take these questions in order it will be easier for me, because the memorandum has been prepared in that way. I am informed that it has always been usual to include in the Canadian- figures the figures of N.R.M.A. personnel in adjacent territories. The number on extended leave included in that; figure, as at the respective dates-that is, August 15, 1945, to which the hon. member for Vancouver South referred, and October 15, 1945, the date as of which I was giving the figures-are 8,235 on extended leave as of August 15, and 9,575 as of October 15, an increase of approximately 1,000.


Mr. GREEN:: Before the minister leaves that question can he give a break-down showing what type of leave -those men were oni?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have ilot that information here but I can give it. The groups, as my bon. friend knows, would be those on- farm leave, construction leave and so on. I am sure I can- give that break-down and I shall be glad to do so.
The hon. member for Nanaimo asked -how the 1,285 N.R.M.A. troops shown as being in operational units were employed. The answer is that 548 of them are in Canada; 431 in Jamaica; 41 in Newfoundland; 120 in Nassau and 145 in Bermuda.
The hon. member for York South asked about the matter of giving points to personnel who were taking university courses. I am advised that these men are entitled to and should receive points for the full time once they have enlsted in the active army. My understanding is -that the men to whom he referred were enlisted before they started taking these courses, and they are entitled to the two points for the time they were engaged on these courses.


Mr. PEARKES:: Does that apply to the
R.M.C. cadets?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend spoke to
me about that matter after the adjournment last evening. I have not that information yet, but I have a note of it and I will try to give the information later.
The leader of the opposition asked a number of questions, the answers to many of which I am able to give to-day. The first question was as to the total number of men called up for service under the National Resources Mobilization Act. I have those figures as to both calendar years -and fiscal years, but I assume the calendar year figures are what he wishes. The numbers enrolled under the N.R.M.A. by calendar years are as follows:
1941		 32,004
1942		 70.504
1943		 34,309
1944		 17,704
1945		 3.522
The second question he - asked was as to the total cost of the N.R.M.A. I have asked to have that figure prepared; it is not available yet, but I hope to be able to give it shortly.


John Bracken: Do the figures the minister gave overlap at all? To get the correct total can we simply add them together?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right; the total is
158,043 for the calendar years mentioned.
Then the leader of the opposition asked whether it was the intention of the govern-

Demobilization-A rm y
merit that the National Resources Mobilization Act should remain on the statute books.
I am unable to give him an answer, because that is a matter of future policy. I can say there is no intention of repealing it at the present session of the house, but other than that I am not prepared to say.
Then he asked how many Canadians, if any, are serving in bases in the. western hemisphere outside Canada. I have already indicated that there are a certain number of N.R.M.A. per- * sonnel, and here are the' figures for all troops. As at October 15, 1945, a total of 2,307 all ranks were serving in the so-called adjacent territories. Of these, 1,067 were in Newfoundland, 5 in Labrador, 746 in Jamaica, 160 in Nassau, 165 in Bermuda and 164 in the United States.
Then he asked whether any United States troops are serving in Canada; if so, how many, and where they are stationed. The information in reply to that inquiry has been supplied by the military attache to the United States embassy in Ottawa. The approximate number of United States military forces in Canada as at this date is as folloyvs: in northwest Canada, engaged in air staging, maintenance, handling of stores, disposal of property, airfields Edmonton to Alaska, Canal project, Alaska highway, Yukon-Whitehorse railway, 3,193; in northeast Canada excluding Labrador, engaged mainly in staging and caretaking of airfields and weather stations, 360; at Prince Rupert, a sub-port of embarkation which is to be de-activated as soon as possible, 610. In addition, there are a small number of miscellaneous personnel such as ordnance inspectors with offices in central and eastern Canada. I am advised that the numbers shown are being reduced as rapidly as possible and the personnel returned to the United States.
The hon. gentleman also asked whether it is contemplated that a plan of cadet training of public and high school students will be carried out. I am informed it is proposed to continue the present Royal Canadian Army Cadet corps consisting of school cadet corps, and cadet corps sponsored by militia units and other service organizations.
Then he asked whether all Canadian prisoners of war have been returned to Canada or, if not, what the reason was for any delay.
I am advised that at the present time there are two prisoners of war from Hong Kong not yet back in Canada but that both these men. are en route to this country. As at October 10, 1945, there were 615 liberated prisoners of war still in the United Kingdom or on the continent. As the committee knows, liberated prisoners of war are eligible for special priority return to Canada if they have 47696-107
been six months or more in enemy hands or if they have been less than six months in enemy hands and have served overseas for three years or more. Of the 615 to whom I have referred, 565 are not eligible for special priority return; 42 are eligible for special priority return but have preferred to remain in the United Kingdom for personal reasons. In addition, there was one man in hospital; there were three deserters and four in penal servitude.
The final question the hon. gentleman asked was how many enemy prisoners of war there are in Canada at the present time; how many have been returned to Germany or Italy, and whether any arrangements were likely to be made for securing payment from enemy countries for the cost of maintenance of these prisoners. As the committee knows, the great majority of the prisoners of war in Canada are held by us for the account of the British government. There are at the present time about 34,000 enemy prisoners of war in Canada. Not one has been returned to his homeland since V-E day. Some small numbers were repatriated under the terms of the Geneva convention. That was done prior to V-E day, but at the moment I have not the figure available.
Then, the matter of securing payment for the cost of maintenance of those prisoners does not come under my department. I suggest that the question might be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when his estimates are under consideration.
I believe I have covered most of the questions asked during yesterday's debate. There was one question respecting the cost of N.R.M.A. personnel, concerning which I am obtaining information. I shall put it on record at a later date.


John Bracken: Does the minister anticipate difficulty in breaking down the expenditures so as to get information for which I asked?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As to cost?


John Bracken: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Cost obviously will have to be prepared on a per capita basis. It can be done only in that way. We cannot break down the actual cost in connection with an N.R.M.A. man, because he served under the same command as the others. It can only be an estimate based on the cost of maintaining a soldier. I am told that is the only basis upon which it can be prepared.


John Bracken: I suppose that in certain years the minister might break it down rather closely, while in others he would have difficulty.

Demobilization-Army


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it might be easier in some years; but I should think in any year it would be necessary to take a per capita rate per soldier, and give an estimate on that basis.


Alan Cockeram: It is $12 a month.
Mr. D1EFENBAKER: The minister said this afternoon that a Canadian court-martial was being set up, or probably I should call it a Canadian military court, to try General Meyer. I believe there will be general commendation of that move. As a matter of fact one point which has impressed me in connection with the set-up of the international military tribunal designed for the purpose, of trying war criminals is that there has been no Canadian representative on that tribunal. Many have felt that, in view of the fact that Canadians were murdered as a result of orders given by this general, or by SS troops under bis command, he should be tried before a Canadian court in order to carry out the promise and pledge of this parliament that hose who committed such wrongs would be aunished.
That brings me to another point, and that is that only two of the men still remain in Hong Kong. Coming to Ottawa recently on the train, I met with members of the armed forces who had been prisoners at Hong Kong. The stories they told about the cruelties and atrocities were such as to demand certain punishment of the perpetrators of those crimes. I should like to hear from the minister a statement as to whether or not a Canadian tribunal will be set up for the purpose of trying Japanese captors who committed unexampled crimes and offences against Canadians. It might be said that any court could try them; but I feel that the court which tries the perpetrators of the crimes against Hong Kong prisoners should be one constituted by Canada.
I come now to a discussion of the whole situation in connection with court-martial sentences on Canadians overseas. According to a return brought down in answer to certain questions I asked, up to September 1 there were 2,776 Canadians sentenced to periods of from one to three years, and 302 to periods over three years. There is provision in King's regulations and orders (Canada), as it now stands, for appeals against these sentences. But in the very nature of things those appeals cannot be as complete as would be appeals to judicial bodies. While there is opportunity to appeal either to a senior military authority, or directly to the governor in council, I believe that something should be done toward setting up a judicial tribunal to overhaul these sentences.

I realize that steps are being taken in that direction at the present time. I suggest, however, that immediate steps should be taken so that the Department of Justice could be consulted. As I read paragraph 574, the Department of Justice could be given the immediate opportunity of looking into these sentences in order to assure that no injustices will have been done. I refer to offences other than criminal, or to military offences as such which, during the period of the war, in the interests of discipline required exemplary sentences.
All hon. members recognize that such sentences were necessary, but with the restoration of peace I am sure most hon. members have had brought to their attention cases which would lead them to believe that everything should be done toward the amelioration of those sentences. I am not here to attack court-martial justice, but I will say that the rights of accused persons are not as fully assured in those courts-martial as they would have been in civil courts of law. I ask for a reconsideration of sentences imposed-and at once.
I find that some 958 sentences have been varied. Would the minister advise the committee as to the number of sentences reversed on appeal, first by the governor in council or, second, by a superior military authority?
All hon. members have had brought to their attention cases respecting young men who have served from one and a half to two years in the front line and who then, for some reason which they cannot explain, have deserted. Some were, away for only a few hours, and others for a few days. I have in mind particularly one young man who was wounded in the hip and as a [DOT] result was in hospital for a period of time. Finally shrapnel was removed. When a shortage of reinforcements made necessary the gathering together in Italy of many men for the attack on the Gothic line, he was mobilized back into the front line, but said that he could not go. He had given two years service. I believe that young man went overseas before he had reached eighteen years, simply by advancing his age-and the minister knows that is often done.	-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have done it.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I know. That
young man had served honourably, but he is now serving a sentence of three years in the penitentiary.
These men are being brought back to Canada to serve their sentences. I have in mind one boy from Regina who was sentenced to four years less eighteen months. He was

Demobilization-Army
taken from his original place of incarceration and returned to Canada. While on board ship he did orderly work, and was as free as could be. Upon arrival in Regina the military police said to him, "You are going to be taken into custody to serve the remainder of your sentence." He was sent to Prince Albert penitentiary where he will have to associate, not with men who committed offences against military law, but with hardened criminals.
Surely the time has come when something should be done to relieve this condition, having in mind the facilities and institutions available in Canada. These men who are required to serve sentences for other than criminal offences should not be placed in penal institutions where they will be in touch with hardened criminals and, in many instances, influenced to follow lives of crime.
I have spoken to penitentiary guards and, without exception, they % are shocked when they have to treat these young men as criminals. They ask that something be done. I am not thinking of those who were charged with treason or with criminal offences of violence; I am thinking of those who in the hour of stress and by reason of a lack, we will say, of moral stamina, men who perhaps had no control, committed these offences and are now serving these sentences.
In the interests of fairness and of justice, above all in the interests of the parents of these boys and their loved ones, I ask the minister to see that these sentences are reviewed immediately. This should not be done by one man set up as a judicial committee; a sufficient number of judges should be assigned to this work to ensure immediate consideration of the matter. If not judges, then trained! officials of the Department of Justice should be assigned. In the course of my practice I have had many occasions to bring matters to the attention of the Department of Justice with a view to obtaining pardons or paroles, and I have found that the permanent officials give to the consideration of each case a personal attention that is most commendable and assures certain justice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am glad the hon. member for Lake Centre has brought up this matter of reviewing sentences of this kind. About a month ago I took steps, on the advice of the officers of the department, to see that such a review was made. I have not made any public announcement that this step had been taken, because I did not think it particularly desirable that we should make a press statement about the setting up of a board of review.
47696-107J
We have created a special review board of which Mr. Justice Iveiller Mackay is the chairman. The other two members are Major General Tremblay and Brigadier Nolan. Hon. members will know who Brigadier Nolan is. I think it is a first-class board. That board is reviewing sentences that are considered to be longer than usual, cases such as my hon. friend has referred' to where a man has been sentenced to one, two, three, four or five years, for either a military offence or a civilian offence. This is in addition to the regular means of appeal with which the committee is familiar, and with which the hon. member for Lake Centre is particularly familiar, that is, the appeal to the minister or to the governor in council.
The board will proceed on the assumption that the proceedings were regular and that the sentence was proper, taking into account military law and all the circumstances. They are reviewing the whole proceedings to see whether each case is one in which clemency should be exercised. In other words, the board is intended in large measure to perform the functions which the remission branch of the Department of Justice performs with respect to civilian offences.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Will they all be
reviewed, or just those that are brought to the attention of the department?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not every sentence; it is only those cases in which the sentence is over a certain period.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Would the minister like me to bring to his attention a case in which a five-year sentence was imposed?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member may bring it to my attention if he wishes, but any sentences of five years would be automatically reviewed by the board. I am advised that all sentences to penitentiaries are being reviewed.


Alan Cockeram: How many of the men are actually in the Canadian penitentiaries?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will have to take note
of that question and get the information, because it is not before me at the moment. I really did not mean ito interrupt the hon. member for Lake Centre, but I thought that it was perhaps a good time to make a statement to the committee. I have explained why I did not- make an earlier announcement about the appointment of this special reviewing committee. It is performing what I think is a very necessary function, but it was not one that I felt needed to be advertised.


Mr. GILLIS:: I should like to say something on this point, something which the hon. member for Lake Centre did not mention.
Demobilization-Army


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for
Lake Centre has the floor.


Clarence Gillis: The minister had the floor.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for
Lake Centre had the floor. He asked one question which the minister answered. If the hon. member for Lake Centre wishes to continue, he may do so.


Clarence Gillis: I have been sitting here for about five weeks listening to this discussion, and I merely wanted to ask one question.


John George Diefenbaker: We have both
been sitters. I have not been asking any questions, and I just wanted to finish this up.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was wondering when the
hon. member was going to start.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of
fact there have been so many good questions asked that I could not find any others to ask. However, I was not satisfied with some of the answers. The personnel of the board speaks well for the board. About the middle of June I brought up the question of the sentences which had been imposed in connection with the Halifax trouble, and I also referred to court martial sentences. I am sure the personnel of this appeal board will commend itself to all. However, one judge and two military officers sitting to consider 3,000 cases means that not many cases will be heard.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are being disposed
of very rapidly.


John George Diefenbaker: In the case of the
army there have been 300 sentences of over three years, and I could hardly believe that these could be decided very rapidly. Possibly the minister could tell us how many sentences have so far been reviewed by this semi-judicial board, and in how many cases have there been remissions or variations or reduction.
There is another matter which naturally arises, and which has not yet been dealt with; I refer to absentees and deserters. On October 5, 1945, an answer to a question I had asked indicated that 11,145 N.R.M.A. men were deserters or absentees, and that there were 13,416 draft dodgers. I asked how many had been prosecuted for desertion and, if my memory serves me aright, the answer was that there were no figures on that. No doubt those figures will now be available.
As I understand the situation, when reference was made to desertions which first took place in December, 1944, and January, 1945, the then minister of national defence said that in the case of those who had deserted
[Mr. Gillia.)
after being ordered overseas, proceedings would be taken at the expiry of twenty-eight days. I have his statement here, but I do not think there is any question that he made that statement on February 2, 1945. As I understand the situation, if the prosecution for being absent without leave takes place before the commanding officer, the maximum sentence that can be imposed is twenty-eight days. But if the man is taken before a court marital, wide powers rest in the court-martial authority. As a matter of fact press reports in various -parts of the country indicate that sentences running from twelve to eighteen months have been imposed. I am sure that the minister is as desirous as anybody else to ensure that there should be uniformity of sentences for this offence, just as appeal courts in respect of the criminal law endeavour to secure uniformity of sentence, making due allowance for conditions and extenuating circumstances in individual cases.
My questions therefore to the minister are these: How many prosecutions have taken place for desertion of deserters from the N.R.M.A.? How many of these prosecutions have been by court martial, and how many by trial before the commanding officer? I should also like to have a break-down by provinces of the number of court-martial trials for this offence. I am sure that the desire of the department, just as in setting up this committee under Mr. Justice Keiller Mackay, who is a great soldier and a distinguished jurist, will be to secure toleration, fairness and equality in sentences and a measure of justice that cannot be secured when sentences may be determined by individuals without regard for uniformity,
I would ask the minister to advise the committee with regard to this subject, which is a vexed one, but one that will have to be faced in the interests of fairness and justice. If it is not faced, and if we in this parliament take the stand, let bygones be bygones; a general amnesty is the easy solution, we put the stamp of approbation on crime committed during a period of war and at the same time penalize those who answered their country's call and when directed overseas went overseas regardless of consequences to themselves.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I presume that my hon. friend will be satisfied with the statistics by military districts. We do not keep them by provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended taking part in the general discussion, but I was rather waiting for specific items to be called. But this discussion is

Demobilization-Army
likely to be a general one for some considerable time, and to break the monotony of having it all come from one corner of the chamber I might as well join in.
The hon. member for Lake Centre has raised a question that to me is particularly interesting, the review of court-martial sentences. But he missed one point upon which I was waiting with great interest to hear him comment 'as a legal man. Last June a considerable number of these cases came to my attention, and I was amazed to find at that itime that several service personnel with three and a half to four years' service overseas were being returned to their district depots, discharged in the district depots and sent to civilian prisons. I thought that there must be a mistake somewhere, and so I took it upon myself to write the Minister of Justice and the Department of National Defence and ask if a soldier convicted of a military offence could legally be confined to a civilian prison. Up to to-day I have not yet received an official decision from either source on that point. I do not know myself just what the legal position is, but it does not seem right to me. I think that before the minister finishes with his estimates he should state definitely that this question is being worked out between Justice and National Defence departments. They may be able to legalize the incarceration of a soldier in a civilian prison because of a military offence; nevertheless that is not justice. I shall be interested to hear from the minister on that point.
Another serious aspect of the matter is that a number of these boys are married; they have wife and children. When they are discharged from the service their pay and allowances ceases, and to-diay many women and children in this country are objects of charity because their husbands who saw' fit to defend this country in her hour of need are now' languishing as convicts in a civilian prison. Immediate steps should be taken by the Department of National Defence to make some provision for the wife, and family of a soldier who finds himself in that position.
I am not going to say anything about the point score system, because I think that discussion is six months too late. The time is past for it. We have discussed it in the house for the last four years and expressed strong opinions on the subject and made recommendations with regard to rehabilitation and all the rest of it. A lot of our recommendations were not carried out. But it is too late now to start making changes in the scheme of repatriation, because most of the boys are back or are on their way back. A lot of boys from the different divisions are writing
me that they are coming home, and the boys in the third division write me that they expect to be back in November. So I am not going to say anything about that.
With regard to the army of occupation, it was the consensus of this house that any army of occupation that we raised to make our proper contribution in Europe until such time as the peoples there can look after themselves w'ould be raised on a voluntary basis, and I was amazed to hear that men with long periods of service overseas are being practically conscripted and retained1 in the army of occupation-.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They cannot be sent back until their turn comes. They are bound to be doing something over there.


Clarence Gillis: You are raising an army of
25,000	to remain- over there indefinitely?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not said how long they would remain. I madie an extended statement on that yesterday.


Clarence Gillis: They will remain until Germany and Europe are in a position to look after themselves.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That remains to be seen.


Clarence Gillis: There is no sense in quibbling over it. I visualize their being there for the next four or five years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I hope you are wrong.


Clarence Gillis: I hope I am too, but I do not think I am. The army of occupation should be raised on a voluntary basis. I do not think anyone should be taken by the neck at this stage of the game, particularly men w'ho went through the war, and be told: You are going to remain in Europe whether you like it or not. We have an army in Canada, and I am sure that there are a lot of'boys-in this country who would be glad- to go over and join the army of occupation. I realize that there may be certain service personnel who must be retained there because of the exigencies of the service. That is a good excuse under all circumstances. That is all I am going to say on that.
With respect to this board of review that is being set up to review court-martial cases, I am not satisfied with the minister's statement. We set up a board, and I think he was wrong in not announcing it because many of us who have been writing to his department for a number of months past have been quite anxious about a review of the whole matter. In my opinion he should have publicized it because it was a move in the right direction. I would understand from his statement that
Demobilization-Army

the review of these cases from one year up to three years is automatic; the board examines into them whether the cases are referred to it or appealed or otherwise. The idea is to bring uniformity into the sentences.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not that. It is performing very much the functions that the remissions branch of the Department of Justice carries out. It reviews cases on the assumption that there was a fair trial and that the sentence was one which was properly awarded. They look into the cases, however, to see whether in the circumstances clemency should be exercised, especially perhaps with respect to offences which, as the hon. member for Lake Centre said, were purely military, the time having come when they should be reconsidered. While the war is on, the military. courts may have to impose severe sentences for what is technical desertion in the face of the enemy, but after the war is over these sentences should possibly be pretty carefully reviewed to see whether the time has come for the exercise of clemency, and that is one of the things the board will do.


Clarence Gillis: But it is automatic. One
does not have to hire a lawyer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. It is entirely within
the department, and that is one reason why I gave no particular publicity to it, I did not want the board subjected to a whole lot of requests and submissions from outside even at the instance of members of my own profession.


Clarence Gillis: I hope it is not just another board but one that will do something.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is working hard.


Clarence Gillis: I have been writing to the
department for a considerable time in reference to some of these cases and nothing has been done about them. If the board has been working hard it has not touched any of the problems with which I have been concerned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They started about three
weeks or a month ago.


Clarence Gillis: They are probably just finding out where the files are.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That preparatory work was all done ahead of time.


Clarence Gillis: I will not criticize them until I find out what they are doing, but I am interested in this point. While the board may draw, from the man's file,, a skeleton sketch of the evidence, it will not have before it in the file many facts which the man would be able to give the board himself if he appeared before it or if he were represented. I am wondering if it is possible to give the Canadian Legion,
	,
for example, or the army and navy veterans, the right to have a representative on the board. Then, if a case is coming up where a soldier desires to have representation, the representative from the veterans' organizations can make a presentation of the facts on his behalf, those facts being set out by the soldier himself. I have had the privilege of appearing before .many boards to represent soldiers, and I know that in many cases the soldier who was present just sat there and would have been in a bad spot many times if he did not have someone with a little more gall than himself to get up and try to unravel the problem for him. The soldier should have the right of representation. Juggling with a man's future is a serious business, particularly when misconduct discharge and all that sort of thing is involved, and whether he is placed in that position or not is a matter that should be carefully considered. I think the board that is now being set up should make reasonably sure of all the facts in any case that comes before it to see that those facts are properly presented in order that it may make a proper decision and not one that is based simply on an outline taken from the files, because files are very often far from complete.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Pretty complete, the ones I have looked over.


Clarence Gillis: I have seen court-martial proceedings-I have copies of some of them- and if I were a magistrate I would want more evidence before me on which to convict anybody. I would ask the minister to consider the question of a representative from the veterans' organizations. Most of these men are qualified and sensible men. and they have a contribution to make to the board. .
I do not like to take up with the minister questions on which he cannot take some action, but I wish to discuss another problem with him and it is a specific one. It has to do with a case in connection with which I have been dealing with the department for the last year. It started in October. 1944. and ray last correspondence with the department was in October, 1945. I canvassed all the machinery of his department. I wish the minister would talk to his officials about this case. The number is F.332213, Locke. This boy in the first place enlisted in the air force and went to Toronto where he was taking training, and then they decided to cut down the air force and he was called into the army. At the time he was called into the army' he was serving in Toronto with the air force and they decided to let him out. They gave him transportation back to his home, and he was called for the army in M.D. No. 6. He was discharged from the air force on February

Deinobilization-Army
9,	1944, according to the certificate which I have here and which the minister's department has had for some time. He signed that certificate on February 9, 1944, in Toronto, but it was not confirmed until April 14, 1944, by the officer in charge of the station. He was issued transportation to his home in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, which is 300 miles east of Halifax where the military district is located. The army officials mailed transportation to him from Halifax on the 1st of April, 1944. At the time the transportation was mailed to him he was in Toronto in the air force and yet they were calling him into the army. He did not receive his discharge certificate until March 3, 1945. That was his discharge from the air force. There was considerable neglect there in issuing that certificate because he signed it himself on February 9, 1944, and, as I say, he did not receive it until March 3, 1945. In the meantime he had waited at his home four months for that discharge from the air force and was waiting for transportation to M.D. No. 6 in Halifax. In the interval he could not secure employment. He reported to the selective service people, and he went to the military authorities in Sydney, Nova Scotia, with his pack to go back to Halifax to join the army. They said, "There is no transportation; you go home and wait". He waited for four months and the selective service could not give him interim employment because he had no discharge certificate. Meanwhile his father began to write to the military authorities asking them to reimburse him for board at $10 a week for this boy who was waiting at home to go into the army and could not get employment because he had no discharge certificate. . The boy in the meantime went into the service and proceeded overseas, and during most of the time this correspondence hgs been going on between the air force, the army and myself and the boy's father he has been there. He is in Holland at the present time. The claim is for four months' board of the boy during the time in which he could not get employment because someone made a mistake in not getting out the certificate.
In the first place I took the matter up with the air force and they made a definite decision in regard to it. In a long letter dated March 14, 1945, the air force advised me on the matter. They said that the responsibility was the army's. The letter was signed by T. C. Thompson, group captain or secretary. This is what he said:	*
It appears that the discharge certificate was misplaced by the military authorities and was not passed to this ex-airman. It has been recovered through the officer in charge of records, Department of National Defence, Army at Ottawa, and dispatched to the ex-airman.
Evidently it was in Ottawa. The air force definitely placed this matter on the army. I then began to take it up with the army, and I have quite a lot of correspondence here. I am not going to read it all, but the minister can check the file, which will be a duplicate of what I have here. In the last letter I received, dated October 19, 1945, they definitely ruled this out as a claim. They say that they are not accepting any responsibility; that there is no provision for payment of a claim of this kind, and all that sort of thing. The facts of the matter are that this man bills the Department of, National Defence, Army, for $160 board for the son during the period when he was sitting at home waiting for a call to go in. Because he had no discharge certificate he could not get employment. That responsibility belongs to the army. Even if they have to add it to the national debt they should pay it because I believe it is their legitimate responsibility. I ask the minister to check on the matter personally, because I have done everything I can with the officials of his department in the past year. There are several things that I am going to take up when the specific items are before us, but I wanted to bring this to the minister's attention at this time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall certainly look at the file. It is a very interesting story. I shall give a little gratuitous advice. I might suggest that the young man hire a good lawyer; he will have to be a good one though. After listening to the recital of facts, and expressing a free opinion myself I would say there is no claim.


Clarence Gillis: No claim?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No claim.


Clarence Gillis: If they hired a lawyer and obtained the $160 they would wind up broke.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I make no comment on that.
I now- have the figures with respect to the break-down of those N.R.M.A. personnel on extended leave as of October 15. They are as follows: Compassionate farm leave 4,705; hog and dairy leave 119; spring and harvest leave 77; industrial leave, 3,340; compassionate leave, 716; logging and forestry leave, 108; coal mining leave, 483; other leave, 27; total, 9,575.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Before we leave this question of desertion I should like to get some information from the minister. He spoke about the board of appeal-


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I interrupt my hon. friend for a moment? I should have cleared that up with the hon. member for Cape Breton South. This is not a board of appeal;
Demobilization-Army

it is a departmental board of review. I made it clear that the board proceeds on the assumption that the court-martial proceedings were properly taken, that the proceedings were regular and that the sentence imposed was in accordance with the law. There is no rehearing of evidence; there is no submission of new facts. It is a board of review, just as the remission branch of the Department of Justice reviews the sentence of a prisoner on the assumption that it is a regular sentence; and it is for that reason that there is no public hearing and no representative of outside groups.


Charles Edward Johnston: I suppose that this board of review will review cases of desertion as well as other cases. The reason I bring this to the attention of the minister at this time is that in the past I have had correspondence with the minister's department in regard to ca^es of desertion. I have one man particularly in mind. I am not going to review the case because it is now with the department. No decision has been reached other than to say that if this prisoner has good conduct he may get one-third of his sentence remitted. I have had information that in some cases' these sentences are cut by one-half of the time for good behaviour. Within the last couple of days I have received two letters from parents whose boys have been sentenced for desertion. The thing that is bothering them is a statement which appeared in the press not long ago with regard to men who are deserters and are now reporting in the province of Quebec and who are supposed-and I use the word advisedly-to be let out after twenty-eight days detention.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is completely inaccurate.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was not going to bring this question up, but as the parents have been in touch with me personally, on one occasion by telegram and on two other occasions by airmail, I thought the minister should make some statement in regard to it, because it is causing a great deal of hard feeling to parents in western Canada whose boys have been convicted on charges of desertion and whose sentences are running,, in the two cases I have in mind, from twelve to eighteen months. When they see some who have been away as deserters for a very long time and who are now reporting, according to the press, and serving only twenty-eight days, it can be well imagined that there will be a lot of trouble if this difficulty is not solved. I hope that the minister is in a position to make a statement now for the benefit of the parents of those boys who have received long sentences for desertion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It may be as well for me to make the statement now. I thought I might cover the whole question when I gave the statistical data for which the hon. member for Lake Centre asked. I saw the report in the press of alleged promises made to deserters if they reported. In view of the circumstances under which it was made, I assumed that it related to M.D. No. 5 with headquarters in Quebec. I asked for a report as to what the real situation was, because the statement which appeared in the press did not coincide with the information I had been getting, and complaints I had been receiving from members and others in the province of Quebec that the sentences which were being awarded were far too heavy, particularly for farm workers and the like. Sentences of eighteen months to two years were being awarded and they thought that was far too much.
As I say, I asked for a report from the district officer commanding M.D. No. 5. I am advised that there is no record of any such promise having been made. I may say, in addition, that I spoke to-day to the colonel who commands the district depot in Quebec, who assures me that that is quite correct, that no such promise has been made and that as a matter iof fact virtually all these cases were being tried by court martial and fairly substantial sentences were being awarded. The impression as to these twenty-eight day sentences may have been created by instructions which were sent out to all district officers commanding and to the district officer commanding Pacific command on February 12, 1945. I shall not read the whole signal which was sent out, as I say, to all district officers commanding, but I shall read one paragraph, which is as follows:
Having in mind the foregoing, and with due regard to the responsibility of the district officer commanding for the administration of discipline within his district, it is considered that in dealing with offences of absenteeism and desertion in cases where the offender's conduct has not in the past been bad, and where the offender has voluntarily surrendered, the case should normally be dealt with by the commander summarily as a case of absence without leave, in order that the offender may be dispatched overseas with an early draft.
The committee will recall that at that time the major number of desertions were those of personnel who had been notified to. proceed overseas on a draft. It was felt that since the purpose of desertion was bo avoid going overseas to serve, that purpose would be achieved if the offender were tried by court martial here and sentenced to a period of detention in Canada. Therefore it was decided that the district officers commanding should use their discretion, of course, and try these cases summarily.

Demobilization-Army


Mr. BROOKS:: What was the date of that order?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I mentioned a moment ago, it was February 12, 1945. That went out to all district officers commanding. On July 26 a general signal or general order, or whatever it is called, was sent out to the same people, the district officers commanding and the G.O.C. of the Pacific command, part of which I will read. The first paragraph was:
1. On 12 February, 1945, in view of the fact that there was an urgent need for dispatch of troops overseas, and that the incidence of absenteeism might be due to the desire to avoid overseas dispatch, instructions were conveyed to you by telegram Rank 3435 that in dealing with absentees and deserters whose conduct had not been bad and where the offender had voluntarily surrendered, the case should normally be d' alt with by the commander summarily as a case of absence without leave in order that the offender might be dispatched overseas with an early draft and so defeat the purpose of the offence of absenteeism.
Then it goes on to say that the cessation, of host ilities in Europe has radically changed the situation in this regard, and so on. Then I read paragraph 5:
5.	. . the urgent situation which gave rise to the dispatch of telegram Rank 3435 has now ceased to exist, and it is considered that the normal practice of dealing with the offences of desertion and of absence without leave should obtain in the future.
6.	The foregoing is intended for your general guidance and for discussion by you with commanding officers within your command,
7.	This must not be taken as inferring that sentenees for desertion are at present too severe. In fact, it is possible that the handling of cases of desertion has been too lenient in the light of the seriousness of the offence.
8.	These remarks must not be taken as indicating in any way that in the review of sentences, suspension or remission should not be freely exercised at the earliest possible moment after it is considered that the interests of discipline have been served.
As a good many hon. members of the committee know, every sentence for desertion or anything else is reviewed on the expiration of forty-five days, if it is for ninety days or more; and it is reviewed periodically. Ordinarily one-third of the sentence is taken off for good conduct, and I believe that in a good many cases the average sentence served for offences of that kind is about half the sentence originally imposed. The general practice, I am advised-and this prevails in the province of Quebec as well as elsewhere-is that the sentence approximates the period during which the offender has been absent without leave or has deserted. As the committee understands the D.O.C. has the power to remit. In a certain number of cases men were out on farm leave at V-E day, and this applies in all 47696-108
provinces. A good many of them just did not come back after V-E day when their leave was up; they thought the war was over and they could stay on the farm and it would be all right. Had they reported back in most cases, their leave would have been extended, but a good many of them just did not do so. After twenty-one days technically they became deserters and were listed as such. Some were picked up; others came in later voluntarily and surrendered. I am told that in a good many of these cases or at any rate in some of these cases the commanding officer has tried them summarily and has sentenced them to twenty-eight days' detention on the assumption that it was more a technical defect than anything else, that they would have had their farm leave extended but had not done so. In other cases where the sentence has been somewhat longer, the D.O.C. has remitted perhaps more than normally wmuld have been the case.
At my owm request I have had a report made as to the sentences awarded in different parts of Canada because, as the committee will appreciate, I have been getting a great many letters from hon. members on all sides of the house and from all parts of Canada on this question of sentences for absenteeism and desertion. The reports I have received indicate that the sentences in the province of Quebec are neither more lenient nor more severe than in the rest of Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: From what the minister has said I would take it that there is a good deal of truth in the statement reported in the press.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I would say there is
very little truth in the statement as reported in the press. The statement I saw was that men were surrendering on the assurance or the promise that they would be given only twenty-eight days' detention. I am assured by the district officer commanding at M.D. No. 5 and by the officer commanding the depot at M.D. No. 5 that such is not the case.


Charles Edward Johnston: It seems to me that the minister has been reviewing the general practice rather than the specific cases which were mentioned in the press. I can quite understand that boys who had been absent without leave for twenty-one days and who were charged with desertion might give themselves up on the word of a member of this house, say, as was reported in the press, that if they did so voluntarily they would be given only twenty-eight days' detention. They might not receive this assurance from the military authorities; I doubt if they would in cases

Demobilization-Army

like that, but if they have the assurance of some responsible person they would come and give themselves up voluntarily and be let out after twenty-eight days. I do not think there would be many such cases in western Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are not many in
the east, either.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, there would not
have to be very many to cause a great deal of dissatisfaction or to result in a great injustice being done those boys who are being given anywhere from twelve to eighteen months for practically the same offence. I think the minister should take more precautions, and certainly he should adopt some measures to see that the sentences throughout the whole country are more uniform.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I said before, I have investigated that situation and the sentences throughout the country are uniform. The complaints I am getting from the province of Quebec-and I am getting them every day- are that the sentences are too severe, that they are from twelve to fifteen or eighteen months or two years. That is the sort of complaint I am getting, I can assure my hon. friend; it is not that the sentences are too light.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister says he is getting those complaints, and I do not doubt his word; but is it the actual fact?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, it is the fact; there is no question about that. I cannot emphasize it too strongly.
Mr. .CHURCH: I hesitate to enter this discussion, but coming from a city which has so many men left overseas I think it my duty to say something. I wish to compliment the minister on the courtesy lie show's here jn committee, and I should like to see his estimates go through, but in view of what has been said here in the last few days about the Toronto district I have a duty to perform. We have more soldiers left overseas than any other city in the dominion. We have been overlooked. Prior to the election, until June 11, nothing could be done. I have been complaining about this "first in, first out" system and the point ratio from the start. The point system is not a proper one. After every great war demobilization is the most complex and involved problem any government has to face. How are we facing it? I say to the minister that I believe in changing the system, and the sooner the better.
Hon. members know what the trouble is. How does it come about that Lieutenant General Crerar has been in Ottawa for nearly

two months, but has never been invited to come here and meet us and report to us. He is one of the world's best soldiers and could shed light on this question. If he had we might have avoided some of the debates we have had on this matter. He was not asked to come here at all and we have never met him. I have never seen him since his return, but he is an old friend of mine, and I paid tribute to him during discussions in the house in 1941-42 when he was being attacked unfairly here although, as I said, he needed no defence. He is getting the freedom of our city to-day.
I may say-and I am still of the same opinion-that he could have given us some light on this whole "first in, first out" rule and other problems. I make my appeal to the minister, who is a soldier himself, for the reasons I have given. Away back last July, after the. war with Germany, I tried to get certain information, but through all the months of May, June, July and August we in effect had no army minister and I could not get the information.
I wish to pay tribute to the permanent officials. I have never been one to attack them. They are, on the whole, a credit to the country. I know that Colonel A. Ross was good enough to reply to my correspondence. I think I have as much correspondence from soldiers overseas as any other member in the house and more, and I have gladly given more than half my days for six years to improve the lot of soldiers and their families.
The minister would be well advised to follow the advice I gave in a newspaper interview last July. Speaking to the Globe and Mail of July 17 I said:
The "first in, first out" rule, while correct in principle is not working out too well.
I pointed out that it would not work out well in actual practice, and would get worse after V-J day. What I have said has proven -to be true. As I look over the record, the situation is becoming more complex every day. We know the Prime* Minister went to the old country. One of the reasons he gave for going, in his first interview over there, was that of getting more information and to seek more shipping, so as to implement the "first in, first out" rule, and in that way to bring about some relief.
After all is said and done, changes should be made. I appeal to the present minister and his officials in this way: Do not be afraid to tell the people of Canada you have made a mistake. Canadians do not expect their leaders to be gods. Always tell the people

Demobilization-Army
the truth, and never legislate against human nature. Trust the people, and they will trust you.
I have been complaining for months before we met here about the complex system now in process of operation. I find- that soldiers are writing to me, young men, high school students who went overseas voluntarily. Now some of them are in Germany and they cannot get back. Some may have lost brothers over there. Fathers have gone away; youngest sons are over there and they cannot get back to school. The young man who enlisted at eighteen years of age would be twenty-seven years of age before he could start and finish a university course and become a dentist or a doctor or an electrical engineer.
I direct the minister's attention to the fact that changes will have to be made immediately. After the Crimean war the same trouble was experienced. Lord Salisbury said that one of the most common errors in politics [DOT] was sticking to the carcasses of diseased policies.
The policy the government has been offering has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. The defeat of Japan came so suddenly the point system fell down. A British white paper issued in September points out that the demobilization and point system is based on two cardinal principles, the first of which is that military requirements must override all other considerations and, second, that the arrangements for the release of men from the forces must be such as will be readily understood and accepted as fair by the forces, and not be too complicated for practical application. All soldiers were given handbooks clear and definite.
Our soldiers have been handed booklets. During the summer months I received one of those booklets, and I found it most interesting. One booklet was issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and I found it most instructive. It contained a great deal of valuable information. But, so far as getting shipping to bring the boys back to Canada is concerned, it was the most-complicated information I have ever seen.
I might say that more than two-thirds of my time daily in the last six years have been spent in dealing with these matters. I find, however, that one can get very little relief, nor can he find out what is going on. No soldier can find the proper telephone to locate officers on demobilization. The federal telephones in our Toronto book are all mixed up and I have had this trouble myself and sometimes try many wrong numbers in vain. I have complained to the Minister of Public 47696-108J
Works and to the ministers in other departments, but one finds great difficulty in reaching them by telephone, or the right office. For instance, last Saturday I tried to look into a matter of this kind. First I rang one telephone and- then another and then another, and then another and, after an hour and a half I gave up and had to write to the department here about it.
I hold in my hand one of the booklets which was handed out last night. I know something about the information contained therein. I know something of the wonderful war record and work of Lieutenant General Simmonds, Major General Vokes, and Lieutenant General Crerar. I know something of their families for many years past and their patriotism since school days. Up until early summer I had confidence that this point system might have operated. However, it has not. The system now offered has not been brought up to date,' and no better system has been proposed.
The British system is less complicated, because they make their selections according to age and length of service, and make selections for those who will be engaged in reconstruction work. Then, there have been many changes in their scheme.
Away back on August 22 Mr. Churchill, as leader of the opposition, made a speech in the House of Commons in England on this matter in which he urged that changes be made, and it be speeded up to aid reconversion and reconstruction. The announcement was made that British shipping would be made available for British soldiers to return them-and I assume that that is why our Prime Minister said in London that he was trying to get more shipping and devise quicker demobilization.
Back in July I complained about ships being given back to France, and United States soldiers securing sixty per cent of British transport. I pointed out that the Prime Minister was making negotiations for shipping. However, thus far we have not heard anything so far in this debate about what our Prime Minister has done. He has been in England for some time and nobody seems to know what is being done in this matter, except from cables in the press.
We are having the utmost difficulty also when the men return. Away back last September I asked this question on the order paper:
What has been done to help ex-servicemen who wish to reopen their retail shops?
I asked the question, because there were no shops to be had. A return was ordered. The reply I received from the wartime prices and trade board on October 18 was a lengthy
Demobilization-Army

one, and one which nobody could understand. That is the way our boys are being used when they get home-no shops available and irksome controls to block them.
The system is all wrong. The war was brought to a sudden conclusion and the government was not ready after Germany's collapse. The defeat of Japan brought the war to a close much more quickly. But it was not concluded through any miracle, but only through the powerful effort of all the allies. It is ridiculous to believe that the atomic bomb can eliminate ground fighting. The sensational advent of the bomb has blinded some people to the point where they believe that it is a complete answer. Once again in this, as in every war, people have been shocked and stupified by surprise. I say that no one weapon can revolutionize war. No such weapon has been found up to this time. It will always be the superior force which will beat down the enemy.
There may be opportunity at another time to say something. In closing, I would say this to the government, that most of our ships in the battle of the Atlantic would have gone to the bottom of the sea, had it not been for one important element, the great bridgehead to America by water. I should like to see the Prime Minister do the same as their majesties did, as Mr. Churchill did, and as President Roosevelt and his successor did. He should go to the bridgehead we had at Ulster and pay a tribute to those people who during this war dad so much to save our citizens and our sailors and get supplies to the battle lines.


Mr. PROBE:: Since the estimates are being disposed of so rapidly I just wanted to remind the minister that he promised to answer a number of questions at the time the naval estimates were being considered. These are to be found on pages 1526 and 1565~of Hansard. I see quite a few answers going through and I hope he has not slipped up on these.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought it would be better to dean up all my naval information at one time in order that it could be properly indexed in Hansard. I have not all the information as yet.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Many of these men who were sentenced for desertion or other misdemeanours are mechanics of one kind or another? I know myself that a number of these men are plumbers, steamfitters and so on, tradesmen that are in great demand at the moment. Could not a system of ticket-of-leave be set up so that these men could be released?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to look into that. I have had numerous representations on the same score, particularly with respect to badly needed farm workers and other workers who it was claimed were essential in the construction industry. So far it has been felt that it was not feasible in the interests of discipline to release ahead of his .turn a particular man who happened to be skilled in a particular trade. Perhaps the time has now come to reconsider the policy, and I shall be glad to take his suggestion into consideration and discuss it with, the members of my staff.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have in mind the son
of a master plumber who is overwhelmed with work. This son is an expert plumber but he was one of those unfortunate boys who served in the front line but who apparently lost their nerve. He was sentenced for desertion. I shall hot take up the time of the committee now in discussing this case but I will let the [DOT]minister have the particulars. My thought right along has been that if at all possible such men might be released under a programme similar to the civilian ticket-of-leave.


John George Diefenbaker: A while ago I
raised the question of the segregation of these prisoners and removing them from the penitentiaries and penal institutions. What is the minister's view with regard to that? That is a matter upon which we should have some assurance this afternoon. There is also the question of the legality of imprisoning these men in penal institutions. I think the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South has considerable merit.
I know that in connection with army matters the procedure is somewhat loose on occasion. Only recently I had a discussion with a provost marshal who pointed out that prisoners were being sent from one province to another without the proper authority of the officer commanding at the point from which the prisoners were being sent. This is a matter upon which we should have an opinion from the law officers of the crown. Whether or-not these men are legally incarcerated, the fact remains that a great stigma will attach to them throughout the remainder of their lives because of having been imprisoned in penitentiaries for offences that were non-criminal within the meaning of the criminal code. The minister should be in position to give an answer in regard to that matter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: First, as to the question of the legality of sending men who have been condemned by military courts to a term of imprisonment to civilian institutions. I would not care to give my personal opinion on that. I think it would be proper that I should

Demobilization-Army
obtain, the opinion either of the Department of Justice or of the legal officers of my own department.
As to whether it is proper to confine men who have committed purely military offences, such as desertion and the like, in civilian penitentiaries, again I would prefer not to express a personal opinion until I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the officers of my department and getting a little more clearly in my own mind why it is being done. I will give my hon. friend that answer to-morrow.


John George Diefenbaker: I have just one more question as to the general set-up. These men are being placed in penitentiaries and penal institutions under orders of courts martial. The minister has gone part of the way. He has set up a board with powers similar to that of the remission branch, but I do not think that goes far enough. The complaints which I receive are that these men did not have a proper opportunity to place their defences before the courts martial. I have a case in mind of a military officer who was dismissed from the service for an offence alleged to have been committed in Belgium. He was entitled under the law to a precis of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission and also of the defence, if any, to the military crime with which he was charged. He was given a counsel but he did not have more than five minutes to go over the facts with him. He claims that he received an unfair and unjust trial in that he had no one to represent him who was fully conversant with the facts or, as a matter of fact, conversant at all.
That is the general complaint. I mentioned a case a while ago of a young man who received a sentence of three years. He claims that when he appeared before the court martial a counsel was allotted to him but he had no opportunity of going over the facts with him. There is a suggestion of a grave miscarriage of justice. It might not be possible to provide for an appeal in all these cases; but where circumstances are brought to the attention of the minister or of the governor in council to indicate that there has been a serious miscarriage, should not an investigation of the case be proceeded with? Under the present set-up under Mr. Justice Mackay, all that will happen will be an examination of the record with a view to ascertaining whether there are extenuating circumstances. There will be no opportunity for a man who claims that his trial was unfair to have his case reviewed. While perhaps there should not be an appeal in all cases, some provision should be made so that when
circumstances are brought to the attention of the minister indicating the possibility or the probability of an injustice, a committee or a commission would be set up, with representatives of the accused or the appellant, so that all the facts may be properly brought before the board and no case of injustice permitted to remain on the record.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I agree with my hon. friend that every effort should be made to see that no case of injustice remains on the record, as he puts it. He is a lawyer of long experience, and he knows it is not infrequent that an accused who has been condemned feels that his trial was perhaps not entirely fair, that he was not as well defended as he should have been or that all the evidence which should have been placed before the court was not placed before the court. In civil procedure there are well defined rules of appeal whereby a case can be reopened. As my hon. friend knows, there is a somewhat similar procedure in military law. There is an appeal to the minister. If the minister confirms the decision of the court martial, there is an appeal to the governor in council. Cases of this kind have come before me in my short experience as minister, and I have sent them back for further investigation of the facts. Perhaps, as my hon. friend suggests, we should go a bit farther and have some outside board to which I could refer such cases in my discretion for a hearing. But frankly I would be reluctant to set up completely new appeal procedure and provide for an appeal of right from every finding of a court martial. That was not, I know, what my hon. friend suggested, but he will appreciate that it is hard to draw the line. What he suggested was that the board should be one to which cases might be referred in the discretion of somebody.


John George Diefenbaker: In the discretion of the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It imposes certain responsibility on the minister. I might welcome- I am thinking aloud now-'being able to exercise that discretion. All I will say is that I will give the suggestion most careful consideration and discuss it with the officers of the department, who have had a good deal of experience in matters of this kind, and see whether some procedure of that sort may be adopted1. The function to be performed would, of course, be completely different from the one performed by the board of review. It would, in effect, be a new appeal tribunal.


Mr. HAMEL (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, something has been said this afternoon about deserters. In this connection I wish to direct
Demobilization-Army

a few questions to the minister. Could he tell me whether the wives and children of soldiers under detention are in receipt of their allowances?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. They are paid their allowance for six months after the detention has started, after which they do not receive anything.


René Hamel: I thank the minister for his answer.
Can he tell me what is the amount of such unpaid allowances for 1944-45 or 1943-44, that is to say for the last year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall have to obtain those figures from the officers who deal with expenditures and I shall be in a position to give them to the hon. member to-morrow.


René Hamel: Can the minister tell me what use is made of such funds when soldiers' allowances are not paid.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not understand the question.


René Hamel: I am informed that the moneys coming to the soldier while he is in detention go to the canteen fund.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, that is not correct.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I have taken so little part in these discussions that I think I may be pardoned for saying a word in support of what has been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I have brought on.e or two cases to the attention of the minister, and I have had word from him that he is having an investigation made. I do not know whether this is what the hon. member for Lake Centre had in mind, but what I am afraid of is that too legalistic an approach is being made in these cases. There are emotional factors too, which generals and lawyers are not likely to take into consideration, and I think that is what is needed in these cases.
A case came to my attention of a man who deserted after he had been for a long time in the front line, was wounded and sent back again when it was considered by some of his officers he was not fit for duty. He deserted for a very short period. He was later convicted, so far as I know, on the evidence of the medical officer who did not even look at him but prescribed some pills or something of that kind. The man is now serving two years in military barracks at Vancouver. There are many cases of that kind, and I think that the minister should try to get something which is just a little more than the formal cold decision of a mil'tary court and legal proce-

dure. Otherwise I am afraid that grave injustice may be done. If anything that I may say would help to convince the minister that something along these lines should be done, I say it now, and I hope that he will give it more than mere consideration.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, Novemlrer 1, 1945