Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):

I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if the government has under consideration the disallowance of any acts of the Saskatchewan legislature. If so, what acts are being so considered, upon whose petition, and what procedure is proposed to give to the Saskatchewan government and other interested parties an opportunity to make representations?

Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I received notice of this question from the leader of the opposition just a few moments ago, and I can give him from memory the information desired. I may not have the exact titles of the acts, but I think I have them sufficiently so to identify them.

The government has under consideration petitions which pray for the disallowance of certain acts of the legislature of Saskatchewan. These are the farm security act; the mineral taxation act of 1944 and an amending act of 1945, and an act to amend the local government board (special powers) act.

The Dominion Loan and Mortgage Association petitioned for the disallowance of the farm security act and the act to amend the local government board (special powers) act,

[Mr. Campbell.1

and in sending in its petition asked for an opportunity to add some oral representations, which I assume to be along the lines of the material set out in the petition. They were told that on October 11 I should be glad to hear such oral representations as they might wish to submit.

The Canadian Pacific Railway Company filed a petition asking for the disallowance of the mineral taxation act of 1944 and the amending act of 1945, and also asked for leave to make oral representations in support of the petition. October 15 has been fixed as the date on which they will be permitted to make such representations. The petitioners were immediately asked by the deputy minister of justice to supply the attorney general of Saskatchewan with a copy of their respective petitions, because there would have been delay had we taken time to copy them here and forward them, and we have been informed that they have supplied the attorney general with these copies. In addition he was at once advised of the dates we had indicated to the petitioners on which their oral representations might be heard. The Hudson's Baj^ Company have sent in a petition, which was received this morning, also dealing with the mineral taxation act of 1944, and they are also being asked to send a copy to the attorney general of Saskatchewan. They have not asked to be heard orally in support of their petition.

If I may ask a supplementary question, when was the attorney general of Saskatchewan notified that these petitions had been received? The time between now and October 11 and 15 is very short for a government to prepare a brief in reply to something which probably has been carefully prepared by clever and competent lawyers.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would not like to give exact dates, but notice was given as soon as we were notified.

Mr. COLDWELL:

When was that?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: The first petition came in more than a week ago.

Mr. COLDWELL:

The time is very short for the provincial government to prepare a statement in rebuttal.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps it is, but I understand that we have only the period from now until November 10 within which to decide whether to allow the provincial legislation to take its course or to recommend the disallowance thereof.

Canadian Army

The petitioners themselves allowed very little time for consideration by this government or the government of Saskatchewan.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: The legislation was already under consideration by the law officers of the department., after it had been officially received from the government of Saskatchewan; and I assume it is the privilege of a citizen to file a petition at any time. We had not waited for the reception of the petitions to give consideration to the legislation of Saskatchewan generally.

That was done on the initiative of the department itself?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is always done. We always receive provincial legislation for examination and there are law officers of the department whose function it is to examine that legislation, and to prepare memoranda for the minister to submit to council.

Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):

I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister make a statement on the dismissal of the editor of the Canadian overseas army paper Maple Leaf for criticizing the repatriation policy, as reported in to-day's press; and will he also state the policy of the government on repatriation of N.R.M.A. soldiers?

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):

My hon. friend was good enough to inform me of his intention to ask this question, and I am very happy to answer it.

May I preface what I have to say by stating that the action which General Simonds took in removing the editor of the Maple Leaf, and the statement which he issued giving reasons for that action, were entirely on his own initiative, and without any instruction or request from Ottawa to do so, but that both action and statement have my entire approval. .

Perhaps it would be useful if I gave the house first a statement of what the policy of Maple Leaf is with respect to matters of this kind. When the various editions of the Maple Leaf were first established, Colonel R. S. Malone, assistant director of public relations, (army) discussed what the policy of the paper should

be with the various interested parties, including General Crerar, commanding officer overseas, and the then Minister of National Defence.

As a result a signal was sent overseas which is referred to in one of the signals from General Simonds, which I shall read later, and which summarizes that policy. I shall give the house an extract from that signal, as follows:

1. No editorial directives, regulations or policies for the Maple Leaf have at any time been issued by either military authorities or from Canadian government sources. Decisions on editorial matters rest entirely with the Maple Leaf staff. On the founding of the various editions of the Maple Leaf, however, the A.D.P.R. Lt.-Col. Malone in each instance set forth a basic policy to be followed as long as the Maple Leaf functioned. This policy involves two principles only and was accordingly registered with Field Marshal Montgomery, General Crerar and the defence department in Canada. They in their turn agreed to a policy of non-interference. This policy which must be maintained at all times is as follows:

(a) There will be no holding back of actual news at any time either domestic, military or foreign events. All factual stories considered of interest to the troops will be published with a prominence according to reader interest. No such stories will be deliberately overplayed if such treatment could result in loss of morale or friction within the army or political controversy, i.e., troops within the army are entitled to their own political views whether Liberal, Labour, Conservative or C.C.F., etc. As there is only one newspaper available to the troops, there can be no special emphasis given to news of one particular political body, racial group or provincial division.

(b) Editorial comment and opinion appearing in the editorial column proper of necessity represents the official view of the Maple Leaf. The basic purpose of the Maple Leaf is for assisting troop morale and at the same time keeping our forces up to date with the news as well as providing some interest and entertainment.

2. For the above reasons the following subjects will not be dealt with editorially:

(a) Any comment or opinion on domestic, political issues in Canada which would cause friction within the army and between the troops overseas and people at home thus injuring army morale.

(b) Any internal military question which would tend to cause antagonism and set one group, formation or service within the army against another. This applies equally as regards other national interests within the Canadian army, i.e.. subjects which would cause friction between Canucks, Limies, Poles. Yanks, etc. Rather the governing principle should be that the Maple Leaf should be a strong medium for binding our army together and maintaining a team spirit throughout. The strength of the Maple Leaf lies entirely in that direction.

Then follows another paragraph relating to letters to the editor, etc., which I heed not take up the time of the house in reading.

Canadian Army

Mr. GREEN:

If that is to be done, I thinK it would be fair to place the editorials on Hansard also.

Mr. ABBOTT:

I should be glad to do that, but they have not been cabled to me as yet. The Maple Leaf is not published here. I shall be glad to see that those are placed on Hansard as soon as we can get them. I shall ask that they be cabled at once. I have seen only the extracts which appeared in the Canadian papers.

Mr. GREEN:

I suggest that they all be placed on Hansard together, General Simonds' statement and the editorials.

Mr. ABBOTT:

All I am talking about now is General Simonds' statement and the statements which appeared in the Maple Leaf which have been referred to in this morning's papers. I want it on the record here. I am trying to give a full explanation of this matter. I thought it would save time, but

Canadian Army

I am prepared to read it. This is the message which came on Saturday to General Foulkes from General Murchie:

Reference my GS. 2091 following is text of statement issued by Simonds to the Maple Leaf with copy to Canadian Press under heading "Statement by Lieutenant-General G. G. Simonds commanding Canadian forces in the Netherlands". Statement begins.

On September 21, 1945, I reluctantly ordered the removal of the editor of the Maple Leaf, Major J. D. Macfarlane, M.B.E. I give you below my reasons for so doing.

Freedom of the press is a vital principle which we are all concerned to uphold. But the position of the Maple Leaf differs from the ordinary newspaper in that it holds a monopoly. It is the only daily newspaper regularly presenting its views and news to the whole Canadian army overseas. .Ordinarily in our country or community there are a number of newspapers presenting news and providing editorial comment on current problems. In this way important and controversial subjects are presented and discussed from many angles-if one paper or group of papers emphasizes one aspect and advocates certain action others will independently present other and contrary angles. A balance of views is available and each individual is enabled to form his own opinions based upon all the information and arguments available through the whole press.

Because of the monopoly position of the Maple Leaf-because it is the only newspaper regularly serving the whole Canadian army- it is inherent in its charter that its editorial columns must present all points of view and a balanced statement of the subjects with which it deals. Particularly is this important when it deals with the subjects in which all soldiers are acutely interested. It is quite wrong for the editor of the Maple Leaf to give a biased view or what is his own personal view in disregard of the views of others on internal military questions which would tend to cause antagonism and set one group formation of service within the army against another.

So long as the editor of the Maple Leaf adhered to his charter and presented unbiased and impartial argument in his editorial comment he was free and would always be free from any interference by myself or any other commander. But on September 19. 1945, there appeared an editorial entitled "On this repat question the Maple Leaf reveals" and on September 20, 1945. a further editorial entitled "To continue" both of which in my opinion made biased and most unfair comment upon an issue affecting every soldier awaiting repatriation. I met the editor and told him that though I had no quarrel with his statement of facts and no desire to suppress or hide them I thought his comment biased and unjust and far from doing any good could only cause unhappiness and dissension in the ranks of the army. I gave him what I considered "The other side of the picture", which I give in full below, and told him he was under an obligation to present those aspects as well as his own personal view's in an editorial in the Maple Leaf. This he refused to do and he further stated that he refused to adhere to the principle that a balanced expression of opinion as opposed to his own personal opinion should govern the editorial policy of the Maple Leaf. Under these

conditions I considered I had no alternative but to order his removal as editor.

It is with deep regret that I have had to take this step. I do not believe that anyone has a greater appreciation of all Major Macfarlane has done than I have myself but in a newspaper holding a practical monopoly I cannot concede the principle that the editor may use it as a medium of expression of his own views regardless of the views of others. I have no personal antagonism towards Major Macfarlane-on the contrary I offer him my personal gratitude and thanks for all he has done since the inception of the Maple Leaf. I would be the very last to suggest that the fact he holds strong personal views is any detriment to his personality or character. His point score entitles him to repatriation now and in arranging this I wish him good luck in his future undertakings.

"The other side of the picture."

I have said that I considered the editorials in the Maple Leaf of September 19 and 20 presented a biased point of view and were unjust.

I am not challenging the facts as presented and have no desire to suppress them.

I consider the editorial of the nineteenth unfortunate, first of all because the very title of it and the whole tone implies that the Maple Leaf has unearthed something that the authorities are trying to conceal.

Every soldier in the Canadian army overseas ought to have known long ago that the plan approved by the Department of National Defence for repatriation of the Canadian army, the plan for the execution of which I have been made responsible, envisages units returning as such with personnel of point scores between 150 and 50. This was stated in the official publication "After victory in Europe" issued last May. It w'as repeated in General Crerars circular letter of July 10. and I have personally so informed officers, N.C.O's and men when speaking to them on this problem. The fact that a concession has been made to high point scores by inserting further Canada drafts between the moves of successive divisions has not changed the policy that units when they move as such will take with them all personnel on their strength with point scores of between 150 and 50. There can be no "revelation" in that it has been known and published in the Maple Leaf and discussed for months.

The real issue by the Maple Leaf and the real reason why I condemn the editorials of September 19 and 20, is that they advocate that N.R.M.A. soldiers should be treated differently from volunteer soldiers for purposes of repatriation. It may be unfortunate that the individual cases referred to in the Maple Leaf editorial of September 19, 1945, were posted last June to a unit of the first Canadian infantry division but to remove them now I am convinced would be unjust for it would mean that for soldiers with equal points the volunteer and N.R.M.A. soldier must be treated differently. This would be wrong from both the practical and moral point of view.

Of soldiers who started their service in the N.R.M.A. some after being called up and while still serving in Canada volunteered to come overseas. Some who were sent to the United Kingdom as N.R.M.A. became "active" volunteers whilst in the United Kingdom, some sent to reinforcement units on the continent became "active" volunteers after reaching the continent. Some sent as reinforcements to the continent never became "active", they were posted forward

Canadian Army

to infantry battalions and fought as N.R.M.A. men. Of this last group, i.e., those who never changed their N.R.M.A. status, sixty were killed in action, 192 were wounded.

When we were hard pressed last autumn and spring and the N.R.M.A. were sent over as reinforcements I believed the feeling of the whole army was that if they "did their stuff" they would be accepted as equal members of this army. They did "do their stuff" and it would be morally wrong at this time when the fighting is over to say that they should be treated differently from other soldiers.

If the criterion is taken as to whether or not a soldier served in an operational theatre, what about volunteers who never served in an operational theatre. A comparison of risks run is not valid at this stage for those of us who are awaiting repatriation, have in fact survived, we are here alive and well regardless of comparative risks to which individuals might have been exposed. There are both volunteers and N.R.M.A. men who have fought in battle. Some of both have been killed. Some of both have been wounded. Some of both have come through the battle unscathed. There are both volunteers and N.R.M.A. men who have never served outside Canada. There are both volunteers and N.R.M.A. men who have never served in an operational theatre. Length of service and length of service abroad are the only proper individual yardsticks at this time. Two points for a month's service in Canada, three points for a month's service abroad discriminates in favour of the man who has served abroad. But between men of equal points there cannot be further moral discrimination.

I have used the term moral discrimination because there must be some practical discrimination between individuals. There are many with high scores who- must be prepared to wait because duty so requires.

I consider it my duty to see that those who have to wait the longest before returning home are at_ least as well served as regards health, education, sports, welfare, recreation and leave as those more fortunate ones who have returned to Canada in the earliest drafts. To do this I must retain, sufficient experienced staff and regimental officers, warrant officers, N.C.O's. clerical staffs, cooks, administrative specialists and tradesmen and units of the services to ensure that a proper standard of administration is upheld until the end. That is why it is impossible to let the point score be the only consideration in the order of return home. Some with very high scores, others with medium group scores must subordinate their own personal wishes to return home to their duty to the group as a whole.

Feeling as we do about this question of return lome it is not difficult to find individual cases here and there which appealing to our emotions give rise to feelings of indignation and injustice that our particular turn has not come sooner. But the few individual cases do not really affect this problem which is still to be solved in terms of many thousands.

I assure you that it is my intention to work tl}e,repot plan with the greatest possible degree of fairness to the individual providing that this does not react to the serious detriment of the remaining groups.

My hon. friend asked me to give a statement on the repatriation policy. The broad

[Mr. Abbott. 1

details of that policy I think are pretty well known and are as indicated in General Simonds' message. They were outlined in the pamphlet which was issued after VE-day early in May.

Mr. GREEN:

What I asked about was the policy of the government on repatriation of the N.R.M.A, soldiers.

Mr. ABBOTT:

That is pretty well indicated too in General Simonds' statement. But may I point out to the house, as I indicated in the statement I gave to the press last night, that this repatriation policy is not a policy which was adopted here in Ottawa and imposed on the army overseas. That policy was evolved overseas, by the men over there, by General Crerar and his officers. It was, of course, approved in Ottawa, but neither my predecessor nor I, nor for that matter the staff here in Ottawa, initiated or designed that policy. It was worked out overseas. It was felt here that the policy would be more satisfactory if it were designed by the men on the spot who knew the problem. I want to make that perfectly clear, because this editorial indicated, as some others have since, that this was a policy imposed by somebody here in Canada. That is not the case.

The policy from the very outset with respect to these N.R.M.A. men has been this: Once they stepped on a ship there was no distinction made between the N.R.M.A. man and the volunteer soldier. They were all going over to fight. There has been a lot of talk in this country-not by me, let me say-of two armies, but so far as overseas service is concerned we have never had two armies. There has been no distinction made between the volunteer soldier and the man sent over under the National Resources Mobilization Act. Once the N.R.M.A. man got over there he took his place in the reinforcement pool, and when his turn came he went over to France as part of the reinforcements and was posted to a unit, just the same as any other soldier. General Foulkes told me only this morning that when people asked him over there how the N.R.M.A. men were doing, he replied, "I do not know, because I do not know who they are. So far as I am concerned they are soldiers just the same as any other soldier."

So there has been no distinction made, and so long as I am minister there will not be any distinction made, between the soldier who is over there compulsorily and the soldier who is over there voluntarily. And to old soldiers it is obvious why that must be so. There must be mutual trust and confidence in the man be-

Canadian Army

side you when you are fighting, and to make a distinction between the men who have volunteered and the men who have been sent over under the N.R.M.A. would be indefensible.