That is quibbling with words. Surely, if a person is allowed to write a letter, he is making representations. It does not matter how he makes those representations; he is appearing before the board, unless it is specifically stated that he cannot appear by writing. The point is that this man evidently had $50 with which to pay a lawyer.
Quite so, but supposing he has not the $50? He is free also not to have it, in which case his application will not receive the same hearing. Evidently that is what happened. If a person can stipulate that he is to receive $50 for pleading a man's cause, then he may stipulate that he shall receive $100 or $500, and it will depend upon how much money a man has and how much he is willing to pay. I submit that the spirit of section 16 should be carried into effect-
-and that no one should be allowed to appear in any way for an applicant; that is, as solicitor or lawyer. A boy's father could appear; an employer could appear to state the functions being performed by a person in that particular industry, but certainly the principle is wrong that a solicitor may appear and charge a fee for appearing on behalf of an applicant. If that is to be allowed, it would be much better for the government to employ its own counsel in each particular district.
I must reply to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, who has been waiting patiently for an answer to a question he asked some time ago. He asked what would be the position with regard to the case of a person who was a farmer and a fisherman. I should point out to the hon. member that the term, "person wholly or mainly employed in agriculture" includes two classes of persons. In the first place it means:
. . . any person who, on the 23rd day of March, 1942, was wholly or mainly employed or engaged in agriculture . . .
It also includes:
. . . any person who, on the said 23rd day of March, 1942, was employed or engaged, but only seasonally, in a primary industry but whose last employment or occupation immediately prior to such seasonal employment or engagement in a primary industry was wholly or mainly in agriculture.
Everyone knows that there are a great many people whose basic occupation is farming but who, in the fall and winter, may engage in a primary occupation such as lumbering, forestry, fishing or trapping. The term "primary industry" is also defined in the regulations, so
War Appropriation-War Services
that if this man was in the main a farmer and in winter time was a fisherman, he would be covered by these regulations, on the ground that these primary temporary occupations are really carried on by the man in conjunction with his occupation, as being wholly or mainly employed in agriculture.
How about this case? In the bay of Fundy, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, many of the fishermen own and fish what are known as weirs for sardines. These men live on the land. In the summer they are engaged in fishing for half the time and in farming the other half. Surely these men would be classified as farmers, which I think would be the proper classification for them, and surely they would be exempt.
I should think in the main they would be. The persons whom I was attempting to describe were those only ' seasonally employed in a primary industry. The person described by the leader of the opposition is a man who is perhaps a farmer all the year round, and during the summer he is a fisherman.
In such a case it becomes a question of fact, and I do not think I should go any further than to say that the circumstances in each case would be looked into, all the facts being taken into consideration.
I have a case in point, in connection with which I was going to ask the minister a question. This man is undoubtedly a farmer, has done nothing else all his life, has done it all the time, but I have reason to believe that on March 23 he was in a training camp. Would he be eligible for postponement, under those circumstances?
No. He is in the army, and he is not covered by the regulations to which I have been referring. I indicated that the purpose of these regulations was to prevent the agricultural situation in Canada from deteriorating beyond its then position. The only persons who are covered by these amendments are those who, on March 23, 1942, were wholly or mainly employed in agriculture, within the meaning of the regulations, or primary industries as being incidental to agriculture. If one might use rather loose phraseology, those are the persons who are frozen in agriculture, in order to prevent agriculture from deteriorating beyond
its then position, and it is only the persons who were frozen in agriculture and who remain in agriculture who come within the ambit of these amendments.