Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):

May I ask, without anticipating an immediate answer, a question of the Prime Minister which he and the government might be turning over in their minds. It has been represented to me by some hon. members that they would like to know what are the plans of the government with respect to the Easter recess. Especially interested are those members who live a long distance away and who do not get home very frequently; they would like to lay their plans for a return to their constituencies during the Easter vacation. Will the Prime Minister indicate at an appropriate time upon what date it is anticipated this house will adjourn for Easter, and how long the Easter recess will be?

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I shall be pleased to give my hon. friend an answer within a day or two. I might say at once that the government has had in mind an adjournment of at least a fortnight at Easter. It will not be a brief adjournment, but one sufficiently long to enable hon. members who are some distance from Ottawa to return to their homes. In that connection we have been considering what, in connection with the taking of the plebiscite, might also be of advantage. Some little time ago I had a hope that the taking of the plebiscite would come about the time of the Easter recess and that the recess might be made sufficiently long to enable hon. members to speak on the plebiscite, not only in their own constituencies but elsewhere if they felt so inclined. It looks now, I am afraid, as though it would not be possible to have the Easter adjournment sufficiently long to cover the period which will intervene between Easter and the taking of the plebiscite. At any rate I hope that the Easter recess may serve as an opportunity to hon. members to have their constituents informed of their point of view in relation to the plebiscite. I speak of that as being among the reasons why the government has had in mind a somewhat prolonged adjournment at Easter.

Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):

I want to direct a question to the Minister of National War Services. At this time, when the production of maple

sugar is about to begin and the production of vegetables is under way in hothouses, will the minister continue to call farmers and farmers' sons for military training?

Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):

I am afraid it will not be possible to meet the request that the calling of men for military training should be suspended. The divisional boards have power to hear applications for postponements. Each board has jurisdiction to grant a postponement order when it is of the opinion that it is in the national interest to do so; and in the case of certain occupations, such as that of agriculture, the board is required to take into account the supply of labour which is available and the importance of the individual's occupation to the national economy. I am sure that the boards will take into account the matters to which the hon. member has referred when they deal w'ith applications for postponements.

Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):

I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I have received letters to the effect that certain claims for bonus have been passed at Edmonton and forwarded to the treasury board for payment but that no settlement has yet been made. Could the minister explain the reason for the delay?

Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agri-mlture):

The plan which has been followed n connection with the making of wheat acreage reduction payments is that the Department of Agriculture shall have made inspections and rendered reports to the treasury officials, by whom, of course, the cheques are issued. Naturally, before those payments are made, there is a check with other reports which have been rendered by the fanners who have made the applications. This check is made with the prairie farm asistance returns and with the permits which have been issued by the wheat board, on both of which there are statements with regard to acreage. To speak in general terms, I would say that when the first applications came in, about forty per cent-I am speaking now from memory-of the applicants had returns on 1939 and 1940 and 1941 which were all alike.

They stated their acreages as the same for 1939, on returns made in 1941, as they did in 1939 and there was no difficulty about making these payments. Practically all these pay-

Prairie Farm Assistance

meats were made in the months of July and August and probably early in September. In about sixty per cent there were some differences. A great deal of checking has been necessary in order to explain why a man put in a different return in 1939 about the 1939 acreage from that which he put in about the same acreage in 1941, or with regard to the 1940 acreage, as the case might be; and it has been in an attempt to justify payment on the basis of the 1941 declarations which were sworn to that there has been some delay. There were 186,000 farmers who made application, and 182,000 of them had been paid about $27,000,000 down to the end of last week. Most of these have been paid their full amount, but at a recent date there were between 20,000 and 35,000 whose claims still [DOT]had to be adjusted. Some of these adjustments are still being made. I think it will be agreed, however, that even if there are some

20,000 or 35,000 applications still outstanding, in which there is twenty-five per cent unpaid and with regard to which some adjustment must be made before payment, and some four or five thousand cases where no payment has been made at all, a real effort has been made by the organization, both in the treasury and in the Department of Agriculture, to get the payments out as soon as possible.

Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):

I wish to address some questions to the Minister of Labour. Over the week-end I was invited to attend a meeting of the automobile workers union at Windsor where they were discussing the question of union recognition in the Motor Products plant. I found a meeting of some 7,000 automobile workers protesting against the treatment which the workers of the Motor Products industry had received. My questions are: 1. What knowledge has the minister of this situation? 2. Why was the request for a conciliation board, made to the Department of Labour on December 6, not granted? 3. What does the Department of Labour propose for the settlement of that difficulty in order to avoid its spreading to other essential war industries in that section?

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):

The strike took place while Mr. Louis Fine of Toronto, who acted as industrial disputes inquiry commissioner to look into the dispute, was at Windsor. It was illegal

under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act and under the orders in council establishing the industrial disputes inquiry commission. The employees were so informed. They indicated their willingness to return after the illegal strike. I sent a personal wire to the management suggesting that they be reinstated. The management replied that the employees in question had gone on an illegal strike and they found it was necessary to lay off some people, and they did not require their services at this time. Mr. Louis Fine is in Toronto to-day in connection with the matter in an effort to reach a satisfactory conclusion.