1940-01-25

[Stage Direction]
.

[Stage Direction]
itouge of Commons!
[Stage Direction]
debates!
Thursday, January 25, 1940.

[Stage Direction]
The parliament which had been prorogued from time to time to the twenty-fifth day of January, 1940, met this day at Ottawa, for the dispatch of business.

Mr. Speaker read a communication from the Governor General's secretary, announcing that His Excellency the Governor General would proceed to the Senate chamber at three p.m. on this day, for the purpose of formally opening the session of the dominion parliament.
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod,
as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And the house being returned to the Commons chamber:

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that during the recess I received communications from several members, notifying me that the following vacancies had occurred in the representation, viz:
Of Wilfrid Girouard, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Drummond-Arthabaska, by resignation;
Of Pierre Emile Cote, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Bonaventure, by resignation;
Of Otto Buchanan Elliott, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Kindersley, by resignation;
Of James Warren Rutherford, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Kent, Ontario, by decease;
95826-A
Of Joseph Leon Vital Mallette, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Jacques-Cartier, by decease;
Of Alexander MacGillivray Young, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Saskatoon City, by decease;
Of Hon. Fernand Rinfret, member for the electoral district of St. James, by decease;
Of Alfred Edgar MacLean, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Prince, by decease.
I accordingly issued my several warrants to the chief electoral officer to make out new writs of election for the said electoral districts, respectively.



NEW MEMBERS

Walter Edward Foster: I have the honour to
inform the house that during the recess the clerk of the house has received from the chief electoral officer certificates of the election and return of the following members, viz:
Of Douglas George Leopold Cunnington, Esquire, for the electoral district of Calgary West;
Of Arthur Lisle Thompson, Esquire, for the electoral district of Kent, Ontario;
Of Eugene Durocher, Esquire, for the electoral district of St. James;
Of Elphege Marier, Esquire, for the electoral district of Jacques-Cartier;
Of Hon. James Layton Ralston, for the electoral district of Prince;
Of Walter George Brown, Esquire, for the electoral district of Saskatoon City.



NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Hon. James Layton Ralston, member for the electoral district of Prince, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe.
Arthur Lisle Thompson, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Kent, Ontario, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. N. A. McLarty.
[Stage Direction]
Governor General's Speech
[Stage Direction]
Eugene Durocher, Esquire, member for the electoral district of St. James, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe.
Elphege Marier, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Jacques Cartier, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe.
Douglas George Leopold Cunnington, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Calgary West, introduced by Hon. Robert J. Manion and Mr. E. E. Perley.
Walter George Brown, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Saskatoon City, introduced by Miss Agnes C. Macphail and Mr. Joseph Needham.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 1, respecting the administration of oaths of office.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Walter Edward Foster: I have the honour to inform the house that when the house did attend His Excellency the Governor General this day in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to make a speech to both houses of parliament. To prevent mistakes, I have obtained a copy, which is as follows. Shall I dispense?


Mr. MANION:: No; I should like to have it read.


Walter Edward Foster: I will have it read by the clerk assistant.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
During the months which have elapsed since the close of the special session, my ministers have given unremitting attention to the organization and prosecution of Canada's war effort. The government has been in constant consultation with the government of the United Kingdom, and the measures adopted have been those which it is believed will best serve the common cause.
Vigorous action has been taken through all branches of the armed forces to provide for the security and defence of Canada, and for cooperation with the allied forces on land, on sea and in the air.
For the effective prosecution of the war, Canada's industrial, financial and other resources are being steadily mobilized and all war activities coordinated. The production and marketing of agricultural and other primary products have been given constructive direction; and safeguards have been provided against undue enhancement, under war conditions, of the prices of food, fuel and other necessaries of life.

Since last you met the developments of the war have made increasingly clear the nature of the struggle in which we are engaged. The very existence of nations that cherish independence and democratic ideals is menaced by enemy forces of ruthless aggression which aim to dominate mankind by terror and violence. The Canadian people have shown their determination to share with Britain and France to the utmost of their strength in the defence of freedom.
My ministers are of the opinion that the effective prosecution of the war makes it imperative that those who are charged with the grave responsibility of carrying on the government of Canada should, in this critical period, be fortified by a direct and unquestioned mandate from the people. My advisers, accordingly, having regard to existing conditions and the stage of the life of the present parliament, have decided upon an immediate appeal to the country.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
In all that pertains to the discharge of your responsible duties, may Divine Providence be your strength and guide.



WAR MEASURES ACT


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
table certain orders in council respecting war emergency matters. These are the various orders that have been passed under the War Measures Act. There are typewritten copies of all measures that have been passed since the close of the special session and up to and including January 17, 1940. All orders in council passed under the authority of the War Measures Act having the character of legislation are being printed and I have every reason to believe that they will be ready to table in printed form, both in French and in English, by the middle of next week.



ACTING DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS

Walter Edward Foster: I have the honour to inform the house that I have appointed John Laundy to be acting deputy sergeant at arms during the present session.



DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I rise to
move that the house do now adjourn, but if the house would permit me so to do I should like to make a statement to hon. members with respect to the paragraph in the speech from the throne which refers to an immediate dissolution. Hon. members will be interested in knowing the circumstances which
Dissolution of Parliament
have actuated the ministry in advising his excellency that no time should be lost in having an appeal to the country.
The paragraph to which I have particular reference is the following:
My ministers are of the opinion that the effective prosecution of the war makes it imperative that those who are charged with the grave responsibility of carrying on the government of Canada should, in this critical period, be fortified by a direct and unquestioned mandate from the people. My advisers, accordingly, having regard to existing conditions and the stage of the life of the present parliament, have decided upon an immediate appeal to the country.
The house will recall that at the special session my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) asked me if I was prepared to give an undertaking that an election would not 'be called by the present government before parliament had again been summoned. I gave him that assurance and I should like to read to the house the words used in that connection. They will be found at page 157 of Hansard. They are as follows:
As to the question of a general election before another session, my hon. friend has been kind enough to say that I told him some time ago that I would not think of anything of the kind or countenance it. Nor have I had a suggestion from any member of parliament that a general election should be thought of between now and another session.
I wish to direct particular attention to these words: "before another session'' and "a general election should be thought of between now"-that is the time at which I was speaking last September-"and another session."
I then gave to the house my own views with respect to the undesirability of parliament extending its own term. Perhaps I had better give that paragraph, as it follows in natural sequence. I said:
The term of parliament is five years; and as time runs on there may be in the minds of some a temptation to follow the course which was adopted during the last war and have parliament perpetuate its term, provided the war is not over at that time. Personally, I never liked the extension which was made during the time of the last war. In my opinion, the people of the country have the right to say whom they wish to have administering the affairs of Canada, and they should exercise that right periodically at the time provided for in the constitution. I do not think any parliament should take it upon itself to deprive the people of that right. That is my feeling, very strongly, at the moment. There may be conditions between now and the end of this parliament which may necessitate a reconsideration of this question, but I should hope that everyone would expect that the people of Canada should have a chance to express their minds freely with regard to the administration,
95828-AJ
the opposition, third parties and generally with their representation in parliament within the period of time which the constitution provides.
I returned to the question of calling the next session of parliament, and said:
It is my intention to have parliament called again in January. It may possibly be necessary to have parliament called before that, but I should expect that we would follow the usual procedure and bring hon. members together some time in the month of January. At that time, we will be in a position to consider what steps may be most necessary with regard to developments that may ensue meanwhile. I hope I have made perfectly clear the position of my colleagues and myself.
Then my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was kind enough to say:
May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to break the rules and speak again merely to express my thanks to the Prime Minister for his straightforward answer to my question.
I think it is quite clear from, what I have read what was in my mind at the time as to the different circumstances that might arise in a period of war; and that my intention was that before there should be a dissolution of this parliament, parliament itself should be summoned and given that information; in other words, that there would be no election between the last special session and the calling of the present session.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that at that time I had hoped that circumstances might be such as would permit of another session of this parliament being held before a general election. But as I have said, no one can foresee what is likely to take place in a time of war, and none can foretell the degree to which a government may continue to enjoy the confidence of the people in carrying on the affairs of the nation at so critical a time. I was careful therefore to say that it would be desirable when parliament next assembled to have had a careful review in the interval of all circumstances which would bear on the question of whether it would be advisable to proceed in a period of war with a preelection session, or to have on the hustings such discussion as must necessarily take place- in other words, to avoid two political battles, one in parliament and one on the hustings as well.
. ^ ^aci felt, I must say, up until a very short time ago that it was going to be possible, at a session called in the month of January, to present to this parliament the measures which the government felt it would be necessary, before an appeal to the people, to carry through for the effective prosecution of the war. I had always been very much concerned, as I think the house is well aware, about the long period of time required by our elections act for a general election. Under the act and its administration I think something like eight weeks
Dissolution of Parliament

is required to elapse between the date of dissolution and the day of election. I had felt that possibly we might get over the difficulty of having such a long interval while war was on and parliament was not in session, by shortening the time in which there would be no parliament through an amendment to our elections act to reduce the period in which the country would be without a parliament to something like four weeks. I spoke to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition about that prior to the special session of last year. I should have liked to introduce such a measure at that time, but I gathered from what he said to me and from what others have said, that the introduction of any measure to amend the elections act would be certain to create some suspicion in the minds of some hon. members and to provoke a kind of discussion that would not be advisable.


Robert James Manion: If the right hon. gentleman will permit me to interject, I should like him to take his own responsibility for his acts and not try to put it on other people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am going to take full responsibility, Mr. Speaker-


Robert James Manion: Then take it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought I
had done my hon. friend a courtesy in mentioning that I had talked the matter over with him before the last session and that he had given me his view that it would be unwise to attempt a measure of that kind.


Robert James Manion: The right hon. gentleman told me that he was going to bring it in at this session of parliament. I pointed out that such a period would not give a leader time to cross this country, and my right hon. friend's reply was, "Why should a leader cross this country?" So far as bringing in such a measure last session is concerned, there was no discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly there may be some misunderstanding in the mind of my hon. friend as to just what our conversation was. At any rate he is quite right when he says that he had mentioned to me, as one of the reasons why it would not be advisable to try to shorten the period for the election, that the leader would wish to take seven weeks, at least, in discussing issues before the electorate in the country. However, my hon. friend has made quite clear his own point of view, which is that he should have a period of something like eight weeks, because that is about the time required under the act, to address the electorate in a period of .a general election.

If that is the case, it demands consideration at once of just when a dissolution should take place which will involve a campaign of something like eight weeks, and controversy on electoral matters throughout that period of time, at a time when the country is in a state of war and Europe is in the condition which we all know it to be in to-day.
But I am getting away from what I had wished to make clear to the house, which was that I had hoped there would be a feeling of sufficient confidence in the present administration, and an evidence of sufficient unity between all parts of this country to have enabled us, at a session at this time, to introduce a number of measures and then to go to the country a little later on. Until a week or two ago-indeed, until a week ago- it was my intention that this should be the procedure. But, as hon. members know, just a week ago to-day, or jresterday, the premier of the largest province in this country-


Miss MACPHAIL:: A Liberal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -introduced in the Ontario legislature a resolution which was directed in no uncertain terms at the government of Canada now administering its affairs. That resolution was seconded by the leader of the Conservative opposition in the Ontario legislature; and when it came to a vote, the resolution was supported by all of the ministers of the Ontario government who were present in the house at the time, by some of the members of thq, Liberal party in Ontario, and by all of the Conservative members in the legislature. The resolution had been preceded by some discussion in the legislature-a discussion which had taken place, I think, for a couple of days-attacking the manner in which this government has sought to administer the affairs of the country during this period of war. I think I would have paid little or no attention to that discussion had it been confined to the leader of the government of Ontario and to the leader of the opposition of Ontario; I would have allowed it to pass, and not made further mention of the matter other than to discuss the merits of any points which might have been raised in the discussion. However, when the Ontario legislature adopted the resolution and it was given a permanent place on the records of the legislature, quite a different situation presented itself to this government. May I read the resolution?
' That this house has heard with interest the reports made by the prime minister and the leader of the opposition of the result of their visit to Ottawa, to discuss war measures with the national government and this house hereby endorses the statements made by the two members in question and joins with them in regretting that the federal government at Ottawa

Dissolution of Parliament
has made so little effort to prosecute Canada's duty in the war in the vigorous manner the people of Canada desire to see.
I ask hon. members to notice the extent of the charge which is made there. It is a charge against the federal government. It is not against myself alone personally but against the entire administration. There have been, as no doubt hon. members are aware, many other attacks upon me personally as leader of the government; but this is against the government at Ottawa, and the charge is that we have made so little effort to prosecute the war. It is further suggested that this criticism, or censure, or whatever it is, is being made in the name of the people of Canada, because it reads: "to prosecute Canada's duty in the war in the vigorous manner the people of Canada desire to see."
I do not think I need say to hon. members that, since war was declared, and this parliament decided that Canada would participate in the war-decided in the unanimous manner in which it did-my colleagues and myself have given every ounce of our strength and every hour of our time in the most devoted manner possible endeavouring to further Canada's war effort, and the interests of the nation. We have not tried to do so in a dramatic or spectacular way. We are too conscious of the gravity of the responsibility which is ours. But we have steadily, day in, day out, given the most careful and thoughtful consideration to every step that should be taken to see that that step would be taken in a manner which would meet with the approval of the people of Canada, and which, so far as the war is concerned, would best serve to further Canada's war effort in the most effective possible way. I had thought, and I believe, that the Canadian people approve both the manner in which the government has undertaken its duties, and the way in which it has discharged them. The very fact that we have to-day throughout the country a chorus, one might almost say, of the press expressing the hope that this administration will continue to carry on, is the best evidence that at least the press of the country, which have to do with the moulding of public opinion, and know something about current opinion, believe that this government has solidly behind it the support of the people.
However, that is not the only thing. Even that resolution might have been put to one side were it not for the evident purpose which lies back of it. That resolution was passed to start a political campaign while this parliament was in session, to have advantage taken of the fact that my colleagues and myself would be obliged to give our attention and our whole attention while parliament was
sitting to the work of parliament as well as to the problems of the war and the carrying on of Canada's war effort, while other gentlemen were to be free to criticize our effort, to misrepresent everything that was done, and everything that to them might seem to be left undone. In other words, we were to continue to carry the grave responsibility of doing our duty in the matter of Canada's war effort, and at the same time assume a very great responsibility-not as great as the other, but a very great responsibility-of meeting parliament day in and day out and to try so to conduct debates here as to have due regard for what is taking place in Europe and the care to be exercised with respect to whatever is said and whatever is done, and to have at the same time an electoral campaign carried on against us by those who are political opponents of the administration.
What is the cry already? Already, after this resolution is passed, the leader of the Conservative party of Ontario, at a political meeting, tells the meeting, and through the meeting the province, and through the province the country, that the election must start at once; and he gives them the slogan, "King must go." That is to be the slogan. I am quite prepared to accept that slogan if he will add the words, "to the country." But I ask hon. members: How can I be expected to do what is expected of me by this country in a time of war as leader of the government of Canada if all of my time and thought is to be surrounded by the animosities of political opponents who are seeking to undermine every effort that is being put forward in the leadership of the administration?
I should have thought that, at least until this house had met and expressed its views, those who have any sense of public duty would have been content to allow their political animosity not to be given too much expression. However, it is now evident that a political campaign has begun. That being so, I ask hon. members whether it is wise to try to carry on a political campaign in the country and a political campaign in this parliament-two campaigns at one and the same time-while war is going on at the front.
People the world over will understand, I believe, what may be said on the hustings, and they will be prepared to make some allowance for extreme statements made in the course of a political campaign. They can understand political opponents speaking differently on the hustings from the way in which they speak in this chamber where they have the responsibility which rests upon members in this house. It is a very different thing to have such, discussions introduced into the debates in this house as is inevitable once a campaign has started in the country.
Dissolution oj Parliament

Apart from that, however, may I say there are very strong reasons-and they are set forth in the speech from the throne-why it is in the public interest, in the interest of the country, and in the interest of the allied powers, if we are to have an election, as it is now perfectly evident that we must have, we should have it just as soon as possible, and have it over at the earliest moment.
In the first place, as indicated by the speech from the throne, this is the sixth session of the present parliament, one session having been a special one. This parliament was returned in 1935 and this is 1940. That in itself, in my opinion, is the strongest reason why there should be an election at this time. Some may say that this was not the case with Sir Robert Borden; that this was not the view that he took. Sir Robert Borden's government was returned to power in 1911 and war came on in 1914. Sir Robert had been in office for only three years, and there were the most cogent of reasons why he should carry on. He had still another two years before his term would be completed. Our situation, however, is quite different. As everyone knows, this is the last session of this parliament. When the time came for dissolution as fixed by the constitution, Sir Robert Borden found difficulties in the way, because of the stage to which the war had advanced, of giving to the people the right to which they are periodically entitled of declaring to whom they wish to entrust the management of their affairs, and this at a very critical time. There is, therefore, the strongest constitutional reason why we should meet the country just as soon as we possibly can.
But I would mention another circumstance. Had I thought that it would have been in the interests of the country so to do, I would have gone to the people immediately after the last special session in order that those charged with the great responsibility of government in war time might have a direct and unquestionable mandate from the electorate. I realized at that time, however, that it was necessary that Canada's war effort should be gotten under way as expeditiously as possible, that the country should be changed as speedily as possible from a peace-time to a war-time organization, that all necessary military and economic measures should be taken without delay. Once those measures were under way it was clear the situation would be entirely different. Fortunately, in the months that have elapsed since the special session, the government has been able to organize Canada's war effort and to do so very effectively. We have brought into the public service, irrespective of the parties to which they

belong, key men who, I believe, enjoy the confidence of the people generally. We have formed the necessary boards to deal with the different war activities. All the work of organization with respect to the army, the navy and the air force has been admirably initiated and developed. The first Canadian division is now in Great Britain and the British commonwealth air training scheme is under way. We have just carried through, in the course of a day or two, our Canadian war loan, so that provision is made from that source for the financial needs of the country for the next considerable period of time. In connection with economic, financial and military affairs the basic work has been successfully planned and accomplished and the officials of the permanent service are at this moment in the best position-a better position than they are ever likely to be in at any other time-to carry out further development while a political campaign is in progress.
May I again ask hon. members this question: If an election is to take place, is it not wise to have it just as soon as we possibly can?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: In the winter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer my hon. friend's question in that regard. What about the men who are fighting overseas? What about the military forces everywhere? They have to face the winter


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I should like to see them drive over the roads.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have considered that question carefully and I think my answer will appeal to my hon. friend as well as to others. I am told by the chief electoral officer that an election will take nearly eight weeks. Provided we have a dissolution in the very near future, we might have the election over before the end of March. Before the end of March the roads will not have been broken up.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: They will be piled up, fence-high.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not care
what time of year an election is held, there will always be some objections to consider. If you have not an election before the roads begin to break up in -the month of March, and if you are considering in the matter the physical condition of -the country, April will not be a month for an election, nor will May -May, more particularly, for the reason that if you start the election before May you will have to have the lists prepared before that month; and as everyone knows, the first of

Dissolution oj Parliament
May is the time when a large percentage of the people in the cities move from one location to another, so that if proper lists were to be in existence, there would have to be a further revision of lists at that time. If you go past that time, it takes you into the month of June. For many reasons, I do not think it is advisable that we should wait until June for a general election.
May I give what I regard as the strongest reason for having an immediate election. The one thing that has caused me more anxiety than anything else, with regard to the question of having a general election, is what may happen at the front while an election is taking place. I have had to face, and my colleagues have had to face, the probability of a great offensive on the western front taking place in the spring. I say that if it is possible for this country to have its general elections over before a great offensive takes place, or before the worst of the fighting in Europe takes place, then it is entirely in the public interest that this should be done. There will be very heavy problems to consider at that time. Once the war "begins in earnest", as people are saying, there will be tremendous problems to consider, and the government that has to deal with those problems must have to no uncertain degree the confidence and the backing of the people of this country.
Now I hope hon. members will realize that what I am proposing at the moment is not to extend my time of office, or that of my colleagues, but solely to allow the people of this country to say, as they are entitled to say, whom they wish to carry on their government during this very critical time. If I were seeking to extend the time of the present administration or to extend my own time as leader of the government of this dominion, then I might be open to criticism from hon. gentlemen opposite and from opponents in different parts of the country. But when I am prepared to entrust my political future and the political future of this administration -not merely prepared but anxious that it should be entrusted-to the voice of the people of this country, no criticism can be raised against an intent of that kind.
One other point. The taking of the military vote is an important matter in connection with an election in war time. I think this country still has vivid recollections of how that vote was taken in the last war. We do not want any more occurrences of the kind. We want a perfectly straightforward and honest expression of opinion from the military forces; they are, if anything, more entitled to it than any other class in this country. May I draw attention to this: That vote can, I believe, be taken while the first
division is still in England, before its members may go to Europe, if an election is brought on before May. Though as to this I cannot, of course, say. If delayed, the soldiers' vote will certainly have to be taken while they are fighting on the continent of Europe, which would present a very different situation. This government intends, as all hon. members know, if it is returned, to see that this first division is reinforced in strength from month to month and week to week, but it also intends to see that a second division is sent overseas as soon as may be possible. Now that second division, the men who are likely to go in it and form part of it, are in this country at the present time; they can still be in the country during a political campaign if the latter is held immediately. I ask if it is not fairer to them, if it is not better for everyone, that while they are still in a position to exercise the franchise in their own land, they should have their right to record their vote with respect to the government that is to carry on when their lives are at stake?


Mr. CAHAN:: Does my right hon. friend intend to introduce legislation to that effect?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will himself see just how advisable that would be. I may say to him at once that the government intends to make provision for the military vote being taken overseas, and will do that under the War Measures Act as a most necessary war measure.


Robert James Manion: That is the way Hitler would do it.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Hitler does not take any vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One word further in regard to the holding of an election at this time. My colleagues and I have realized, as perhaps no others could possibly begin to realize, how important it is that we should begin immediately to prepare for post-war problems. Parliament should be in a position to deal not merely with the immediate problems of war, but also with those problems which will arise as soon as the war is over and even before. Measures such as the unemployment insurance legislation should be passed as speedily as possible. I ask hon. members: Do they believe it will be possible for these measures to be put through except by a parliament that comes fresh from the people with a mandate to carry on the government and enact such necessary measures?
May I conclude what I have to say as to the significance of an election in time of war by quoting a passage, the value of which I think will be appreciated by all those who are
Dissolution of Parliament

lovers of liberty and freedom. I have before me a statement made by President Abraham Lincoln concerning the question of having an election in war time. President Lincoln in the time of his administration was faced with a problem much more critical than any problem with which we in Canada are faced at this moment; it was that of having an election at a time when his whole country was divided by civil war. Lincoln had to ask himself the question whether he should take advantage of some means whereby he could extend his term and the term of his government, or whether the people should be given the right which is always theirs of saying periodically who should carry on their government. I should like to read what President Lincoln had to say with respect to the election which took place under his administration during the period of the civil war. I read from a volume entitled,
Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works," comprising his speeches, letters, state papers, and miscellaneous writings; edited by John G. Nicolay and John Hay. The volume I have in my hand .s one which was given to me by Lady Laurier. It was taken from Sir Wilfrid Laurier's library after Sir Wilfrid's death. These are the words Lincoln used in responding to a serenade which took place on November 10, 1864. They will be found at page 595 of volume 2:
If the loyal people united were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided and partially paralyzed by a political war among themselves? But the election was a necessity. We cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of tire election is but human nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case must ever recur in similar cases. Human nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged. But the election, along with its incidental and undesirable strife, has done good too. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election in the midst of a great civil war. Until now, it has not been known to the world that this was a possibility. It shows, also, how sound and how strong we still are. It shows that, even among candidates of the same party, he who is most devoted to the Union and most opposed to treason can receive most of the people's votes.
Mr. Speaker, when at previous sessions we were considering the possibility of this country having to decide the part it would take should a great war come in Europe, as the
fMr.	KinpO
leader of the Liberal party and the leader of the present administration I took the position very strongly, time and time again, that parliament would decide that question. I was told from many sides that it was ridiculous to think of allowing parliament to decide the question of peace or war, that the war would speedily assume proportions which would make impossible anything in the way of parliamentary discussion. I gave my word to the people of this country that parliament would decide, and that the extent to which Canada would participate in the war would depend upon the decision of our own parliament and the provision that parliament might make. I kept my word in that regard. Parliament did decide-it gave its decision in no uncertain terms, and gave this government the means wherewith to carry on Canada's war effort. Now we are confronted with a situation in which our strength is being impaired by those who seek to create in the public mind distrust concerning both our ability and our patriotic efforts. There is only one national authority higher than parliament; that is the people themselves whose servants as members of parliament we all are. Just as I was prepared to trust parliament to make the decision as to Canada's participation in war, so I am prepared to trust the people with respect to the all-important decision as to what government is to administer their affairs during the years in which this war may be waged and probably be concerned with the terms of peace.
It is not an easy or light responsibility, Mr. Speaker, which my colleagues and I have at this time and have had during the past four or five months-yes, and I might well say during the last few years. We are in the midst of the worst situation this world has ever known, and I am afraid that the situation is going to get worse and worse. No one can say how long this war will last. Those who seem to be best informed tell us it is not going to be one year or two years; it may be three years; it may be longer than that. As respects the countries that may be drawn into the conflict, there appears to be a danger of the war spreading over vaster areas than were ever thought of before it began.
So may I say that if we have to carry the grave responsibility of office in war and at a time of war such as the present, then we must be fortified by the voice of this country, expressed in no uncertain terms. If there is any group of men more capable of carrying on Canada's war effort and likely to do so more effectively, then the people should have the right to entrust them with that great

Dissolution of Parliament
obligation. We propose to leave it to the people of Canada to say whom they wish to carry on the government of Canada in this period of world war.
I move, Mr. Speaker, that the house do now adjourn.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion is not before the house.


Robert James Manion: Do I understand that no one is to be allowed to say anything in reply to the Prime Minister's prepared speech? Is it the intention to gag this house, in addition to everything else? Is the Prime Minister to come before this house and make a prepared speech, of which no hint was given to anyone, and then attempt to close the mouths of the rest of us? I ask him if he dares do that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The parliamentary procedure of this house is for the Speaker to put a motion first. Then, if hon. gentlemen wish to speak, they may do so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The motion is not debatable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion is not debatable, but the Speaker can put the motion just the same. If my hon. friend wishes to speak, I should be quite pleased to have him do so.


Robert James Manion: I certainly wish to speak.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I should like it distinctly pointed out that there is no particular courtesy in permitting me to speak, any more than there was courtesy in permitting the Prime Minister to speak on a motion which is not debatable. I should like that distinctly understood. I should like to point out also that the custom in the parliament of Canada has always been for the government to give a copy of the speech from the throne to the leader of the opposition an hour or so in advance, and up to the present session that has alwaj's been done by this government. No such courtesy was extended to-day, not even up to the time when you, Mr. Speaker, had the copy of the speech in your hands. So far as I know, no copy has been in the hands of anyone in this house except the Prime Minister and the Speaker. I merely point this out, sir, because it is a discourtesy which not only offends all the parliamentary traditions of this and the British house, but also shows an unfair decision on the part of the Prime Minister to try to catch everyone in this house without preparation, by the unprecedented step he has taken to-day. Until I went into the senate chamber I had absolutely no
hint that there was any thought of anything like this. The Prime Minister called the parliament of Canada together to-day in the usual way. He brought members here from the four corners of Canada apparently, so far as one can judge-we do not yet know the intention-to dissolve the house to-night. That is what I understand; that is the only conclusion I can draw, although in one part of his speech the right hon. gentleman said we understood what was in his mind. Well, I doubt if when he spoke last session he thoroughly understood what was in his mind, because usually when the right hon. gentleman speaks as he did at that time he leaves himself an opportunity to back out one of the rear doors or slip out a window. That was what he did then.
The only reason why I mention this particularly, sir, is that it is so unprecedented to treat an opposition in this manner. Not only does the right hon. gentleman suggest, in the speech from the throne at a supposedly regular session of parliament, that he is going to have an immediate election, but he prepares a political speech to be delivered here this afternoon and gives no one else any opportunity of preparing any remarks in advance. As the Prime Minister was speaking I had to sit here and try to outline a few points I desired to make as a result of this unprecedented act. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask you and hon. members of the house to bear with me if my remarks are rather disjointed.
It would have been so easy, once the right hon. gentleman and his government decided on a step like this, to follow the usual courteous practice of a prime minister and a government. However, I must say this is not the first time that the right hon. gentleman has shown this type of discourtesy towards me since I became leader of the opposition. I regret that very much, because many times in the past I have said that whatever faults the right hon. gentleman might have-and I suppose I have pointed out his faults as often as anyone-that was one fault he did not have; he was usually courteous in social life and elsewhere. But he has not shown any of that courtesy in this instance. What he ha-done from a political point of view is to carry on what I consider unscrupulous politics at this time, by calling for an immediate election without any hint to the people, in order to gag discussion in this house and throughout the country-at all events any prepared discussion-and to attempt to get a snap decision of the people of Canada on this great question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend allow me to say one word in regard to
Dissolution of Parliament

what he suggested was discourtesy on my part in not giving him a copy of the speech from the throne? He will realize that a speech from the throne containing a declaration of an immediate appeal to the country was a document which had to be kept very secret. Otherwise, as my hon. friend knows, the information would have been on the streets of this country before it was announced in parliament. That is the sole reason why copies of the speech were not given out before his excellency read the speech.


Robert James Manion: The right hon. gentleman merely adds insult to injury. He suggests that if he had given me a copy of the speech I would have blathered it all over the streets. As a matter of fact I have no doubt at all that the press had copies of the speech before it was read in the senate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will say that no one had a copy of the speech except His Excellency the Governor General.


Robert James Manion: I have no doubt at all that the press have copies of it now, while I have not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then instructions have not been carried out, which were that copies of the speech were not to be handed out until after it had been read by his excellency.


Robert James Manion: Yes, read by His Excellency the Governor General about three-quarters of an hour ago. I had not seen a copy, and that is why I had to ask Mr. Speaker to read the speech. However, that is a small matter, but it is just in line with all the other acts of the Prime Minister in this unprecedented action of his. He says, in his remarks, that the Canadian people have approved-according to his idea-the acts of this government. If the Canadian people have approved the acts of this government, why then this hurry for an election at this time? Why call a snap election on this group of two hundred and forty-five members, or thereabouts, who have come here from all parts of Canada, at great expense in many instances? Why snap an election in that manner? This is simply an attempt to take unawares not only this opposition but other opposition groups in the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will tell my hon. friend the reason why I did not do so prior to the calling of the house was that I had given a promise it would not be done until the house had been called. I would have asked for a dissolution the night the Ontario resolution was put through had it not been for that.


Robert James Manion: Is the right hon. gentleman telling me that he meant to put over a trick of this kind, and that he intended to do that at this time? Does he mean he would not call an election until the next session of the house or until another session of the house when he could put over a trick such as this? That makes it that much worse. The understanding was that the House of Commons would be called in regular session and that we would discuss the activities of the government, the effort of the government in the conduct of the war, and so on. If we had come here, as we have, and gone on for a few weeks, the Prime Minister might have decided that an election should be called; but to put over a political trick of this kind I say is disgraceful and is sneering at the political traditions of Canada and the British Empire.
If the Prime Minister had wished to do what he has done this afternoon, why did he not discuss the matter in confidence with me and with the leaders of the other parties in this house? That would have been the better course. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman and the right hon. gentleman the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who sits beside him, both of whom have over and over again held themselves out as the great supporters of democracy, the great believers in democracy-I would like to ask these right hon. gentlemen this question: Where is the democracy in the present act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer the question; my hon. friend has asked it.


Robert James Manion: My right hon. friend has had long enough.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me answer it. Democracy does not mean I am responsible to the leader of the Conservative party or to the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or to the leader of the Social Credit group, but it does mean that I am answerable to the people of this country.


Robert James Manion: Through the House of
Commons. The right hon. gentleman is answerable to the people of this country through the House of Commons.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, by direct approach to the people themselves, face to face with the problem.


Robert James Manion: Yes, in something like a fair manner, not by a piece of hoodwinking such as has been done to-day by calling the members of the House of Commons together, calling them from right across this country, having them here for a few hours, and then having them go back to meet their electors.
And this has happened after four months in which there has been the greatest degree

Dissolution of Parliament
of propaganda that has been put out by any government in the history of any British country. Since the government led by the right hon. gentleman has been the war-time government it has failed. For example, he and his government have appointed I don't know how many press liaison groups, but I do know this, that one of those press liaison officers is Major Thomas Wayling-and I am not saying anything against him or against his [DOT] appointment. However, one of them is Major Thomas Wayling-and he is only one, because there have been half a dozen of them since this government started the war.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Well, since this government started to carry on Canada's war effort, in the manner in which it has been carried on. The government has appointed about half a dozen liaison groups, one of which is working with the Department of National Defence. Major Wayling's press release body has released one hundred and sixty-five press releases since the war began, or more than one each day the war has been carried on. In addition to that, there have been half a dozen other press release groups. Then, you cannot turn on a radio without hearing the words of some minister of the government who is putting out what is supposedly a description of Canada's war effort, but about two-thirds of those speeches are political propaganda.
Having called this House of Commons together, as the Prime Minister did, why does he not make a report to it, as he should? Why does he not make a statement respecting the actions of the government? Why does he not make that statement right here, before the House of Commons? May I point out that at the short session of parliament held in September the party which I have the honour to lead, and for which I spoke, offered fuli cooperation and assistance to the government. And I say without fear of successful contradiction that on that occasion we gave cooperation, advice and assistance. Not only did we offer to do that, but in the last four months, since the adjournment of the short sessions, we have carried out our pledge. There has never been a day in which I have gone forth in Canada to make any political speech -not one. I did put out three or four brief statements in regard to certain matters such as mothers' allowances and allowances for dependents, but in that time I have never made a political speech. The party which I have the honour to lead has stood by that promise of cooperation, not only through the short session but since the close of it. I have never on any occasion been called in or shown anything by the Prime Minister with regard to
the war. In fact, except two or three times socially I have not seen the Prime Minister since the last session. I say there has been no failure by one of the great parties of this country to cooperate with the government. I say we showed a desire to play ball, but the present procedure on the part of the Prime Minister shows an inexcusable desire to play politics instead. In other words, instead of preparing for the war they were preparing for an election. So far as I can see, that is what they were trying to do.
Let me deal briefly with the right hon. gentleman's remarks about the Ontario situation. Apparently he blames the calling of the general election on a resolution passed in the legislature of Ontario. I should like to ask him what right the legislature of Ontario has to dictate to the people of this country when there shall be an election. What right has it to dictate to the government of Canada? Should not this House of Commons be the body which would make that decision?
The Prime Minister has stated that the resolution was moved by Mr. Hepburn and seconded by Colonel Drew. According to the press it was moved by Mr. Hepburn and seconded by one of his ministers, the Hon. Mr. McQuesten. Colonel George Drew did not second it. Anyway, no matter who moved or seconded it, this is the forum before which the right hon. gentleman has to answer-not the provincial forum in Ontario. If he really wanted to call an election because of that resolution, why did he not call it? Why call the House of Commons here to deal with that question?
Another matter I should like to mention briefly is the soldiers' vote. The right hon. gentleman has said that the government is going to bring in by way of regulation under the War Measures Act something which would permit the soldiers to vote overseas. The right hon. gentleman has been travelling around this country for years talking about the supremacy of parliament. The parliament of Canada is now in session; and yet he tells us to-day, when parliament is in session, that under the War Measures Act he and his government are going to prepare something by way of a frame-up-and I think that is a proper word-to provide for the soldiers' vote overseas. That is what he says. I can only say that his talk in the past about the supremacy of parliament was never better proven to be humbug than it has been to-day.
Then, he has said that a new parliament would take up post-war problems. Well, this
Dissolution oj Parliament

government has never solved any of the prewar problems; I do not know how it is going to solve post-war problems.


Mr. ROGERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Let me say to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Rogers), who is laughing now, that for years he was Minister of Labour. He was the man who was supposed to handle unemployment in this country. I say that no minister of labour in the history of Canada has ever made such a complete failure of the handling of such a problem as did the hon. gentleman. His reward for handling the Department of Labour in such a weak manner was to be made Minister of National Defence, at the present time, the most important department in the government. How can the people of Canada expect that a minister of labour who made a failure of running the labour department should make a success of the administration of the Department of National Defence? This is one of the reasons why the Department of National Defence has been such a farce under the present Minister of National Defence, as was the Department of Labour under the same minister.
The minister who preceded the present Minister of National Defence has many faults, as I expect many of us have. That hon. gentleman was shown up in this parliament as having acted, to say the least, not advisedly in regard to the Bren gun. But he was defended by the Prime Minister. He was defended by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). He was defended by the then minister of labour, the present Minister of National Defence. He was defended also by one or two others, but I have forgotten which ones. These hon. gentlemen stood by him. Why then has he been demoted? If he was right, why has he been demoted? If he was wrong, why has he been kept in the government? What I meant really to say was that with all his faults I think the former minister of national defence (Mr. Mackenzie) was a more capable minister of national defence than is the present minister.
I have a few words to say with regard to the government's present war effort which has been referred to in the speech from the throne, as well as by the Prime Minister in his remarks on the floor of the house this afternoon. In view of the fact that long before the war this government was nicknamed the "do-nothing government," the people of Canada should not have expected that this government would be able to handle the war effort at all well. The people have not been

disappointed in that. Not only did this government not prepare for war, but to my mind they have handled the war effort of Canada in a most disgraceful manner. After more than a year's warning we have called up one division to go overseas. There were not enough clothes for these men; there were not enough boots, not enough blankets and not enough machine guns. These men went overseas unequipped to a large extent. What equipment they had was obtained by gathering in what clothes and equipment could be found scattered here, there and everywhere throughout all sections of Canada. I know of one battalion from British Columbia which was dressed in cotton underwear and cotton clothing. These men crossed this north country in the middle of December and continued across the north Atlantic in the same kind of iveather.
I say, again without fear of contradiction- this information comes to me from doctors in charge of these militia regiments-that many of these men are sick and large numbers have been sent to the hospital because of lack of preparation and because of lack of vision on the part of this government.
If it were true that no one had foreseen the danger of war then perhaps I could not criticize. But I find that the Prime Minister, in his remarks on the address in reply to the speech from the throne during last session-I refer particularly to pages 24, 25, 26 and 27 of Hansard-said repeatedly that for as long as five years he had thought of nothing except the necessity of preparing for war. Yet no preparation of any kind was made. If it were not for the fact that this is a tragedy, some of the stories which we hear about the lack of preparation would be quite funny. For example, when the war began a general wrote me-I wonder if I can remember the phrase he used?-stating that the anti-aircraft units had no anti-aircraft guns, and that the searchlight units had no searchlights. That is what has happened all across this country. There has been a complete lack of preparation, and as a result the war effort so far is deplorable.
I intended to deal with this quite fully when I wras speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Whatever has been achieved in the way of preparation has been obtained only by kicking this government into action. The matter of mothers' allowances was settled only the other day. There are thousands of widowed mothers and other dependants of men who have enlisted to whom this government has failed to give the proper allowance. One man told me that he had been in the army for four months and had had to sell an old car which he had so that
Dissolution of Parliament
he could carry on. His wife had not received her separation allowance. Along toward Christmas we heard that these separation allowances were being paid, but the mothers are still without their allowances.
Many of the boys who enlisted were on relief, and they owed no gratitude to this government for anything which had been done to relieve their distress or to give them work and wages. These boys had the guts to join the army to fight for Canada; they had the decency to come forward and offer their lives for democracy; yet in many instances the mothers of these boys who were on relief, partly on account of the inactivity of the former minister of labour and the government generally in not solving this problem, are being faced with hunger. I have in my office scores, perhaps hundreds, of pitiful and pathetic letters from mothers of boys who are now in the army. Many of these mothers have pleaded with me not to let it be known publicly that they are not being treated decently by this government. They did not want their boys overseas to know of the suffering they are going through because their sons offered their lives. This matter was cleared up only a few days ago. Rather, it is not all cleared up, but a statement was issued by the Department of National Defence containing the promise to straighten out this disgraceful condition. This government never does anything without being kicked into doing it.
The wheat sale to Russia was another example. Wheat was sold to Russia, and it was only after protests were made across Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific that this government acted. As usual, it had to be kicked into doing it.
There was no defence for this country. What is even worse, there were no plans for defence or for equipment. Yet as far back as 1936, if not earlier, the defence association of Canada was pleading with this government to get ready for the inevitable war. They asked the government not only to prepare defence plans but to prepare defences. Yet practically nothing was done in regard to that. That is why the record of this government has been so deplorable, indeed so disgraceful.
I have one other matter to touch upon and then I shall have concluded for the present. The right hon. gentleman through the mouth of his excellency has made reference to the British commonwealth air-training plan. On December 17 the right hon. gentleman boasted over the radio that this plan was the result of an original proposal by the British to establish air-training schools in Canada for British pilots. The fact is that by July 1, 1938
-personally I think it goes back to 1937-the British had been over here pleading with the Prime Minister to give them the right as one of the partners in the empire to establish airtraining schools in Canada to train British pilots. It was pointed out that Great Britain was in distress. It was pointed out that the fog in that country cut down the number of possible flying hours and caused innumerable accidents. It was pointed out that in case of war with Germany that country would be able to send across the hordes of aeroplanes with which she was so well equipped to bomb the aeroplane manufacturing plants and the aerodromes of the British.
_ All this was pointed out to the Prime Minister in 1937. The then Minister of National Defence referred to the fact that the Vancouver Sun, a Liberal organ, in the issue of July 7, 1937, I think it was, made the statement that this government had fumbled the issue-that is the word they used-of helping the British to establish air-training schools in this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just wish to say, in reply to my hon. friend that what I said in this house on July 1 and which is on Hansard is literally and absolutely the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; and what I said in my broadcast is based on my statement, and I stand by it as absolutely correct.


Robert James Manion: I am not going to question that; but if the right hon. gentleman had wanted to be fair he should have been fair this afternoon and permitted me to bring down to this chamber my papers, and I would have shown the facts out of his own mouth. He admitted himself-he admitted it over the radio on December 17-that the British had made exploratory proposals to the government-verbal, of course, nothing written, because there was great play on the word "request." Senator Dandurand in the other chamber in 1938, in a speech occupying half a page of Hansard, used the word " request " nine or ten times to emphasize the point that the British had not made any request. But the fact remains, and the Prime Minister admits it in his own words, that the British, in informal exploratory conversations, proposed establishing schools for the training of British air pilots in Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We said that we would provide the facilities ourselves and give them the opportunities here, but that the administration must be under the government of Canada, not under the government of the United Kingdom.
Dissolution of Parliament


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends had better not applaud too soon. He said that we would, in our establishments here, give them the right to train. Where were our establishments? Where were our personnel? Where were our machines? We did not have any establishments or machines. Look up the speech of the ex-Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) in the House of Commons last year and see how many fighting planes we had. We did not have any. We did not have any facilities at all to train the British.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then we would have been no further ahead.


Robert James Manion: Well, I will deal with that too. The ex-minister of national defence, in a speech in this house which I would quote if I had had time to look up Hansard, said that the government were so anxious to cooperate with the British-reinforcing what the Prime Minister said-that we were going to train 126-I think that was the number-of pilots here a year, and all we were going to permit the British to send across were fifty a year. Those were his words as reported in Hansard-fifty a year. Yet Sir Kingsley Wood, the head of the air defence force in Britain, made the statement in October-I believe it was on October 9, because I had been studying this matter, and getting thoroughly shocked as I studied it-that what the British had hoped was that there would be 25,000 pilots trained a year. And we were going to train fifty. That is what the ex-minister of national defence stated. At that rate it would have taken us five hundred years to provide them with one year's supply of pilots. That is the proposal; those figures are taken from the actual record. Fifty years, is it? Well, it does not matter, but I think if you divide fifty into 25,000 you have, not fifty but five hundred. Some of my hon. friends laughed a little too soon. Sometimes the loud laugh speaks the vacant mind.
When the British were facing an unscrupulous man like Hitler; when it was known that Hitler had at least twice as many planes as the British and the French combined; when the British appealed to the right hon. gentleman, in the face of that emergency, with war in the offing, to permit the establishment of air-training schools in Canada to train pilots for Britain and the empire, and the right hon. gentleman refused, he did something which made him unfit to remain Prime Minister of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just wish to make perfectly clear that I refused nothing
TMr. Mackenzie King.]
except the matter of who was to administer the schools and by whom they were to be provided.


Robert James Manion: I will go on with that. The right hon. gentleman says he refused nothing. But on December 17 he said that the proposal which he now brings forward, and which he calls the British commonwealth air-training plan, is in effect merely a continuation of the original proposal. But this is not a British commonwealth air-training plan at all. It is largely a Canadian air-training plan. The British proposed to come over here and establish schools for their flying pilots, to be maintained at their own expense. Let us see what would have happened if the right hon. gentleman had said "yes" to them at that time, as I say he should have done. They would have come over here and established their air-training schools. They would have brought over their British young men to train at the rate of 25,000 a year. If that figure is an exaggeration, it is Sir Kingsley Wood's exaggeration, not mine. If the right hon. gentleman cares to look up his speech of December 17, he will see that he himself said that we were going to train many thousands a year. So apparently many thousands a year are needed: Sir Kingsley Wood said 25,000.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: My hon. friend evidently has not learned what the suggestion related to. It did not relate to the training of pilots generally;
it related to an advanced stage of development. That advanced stage we promised that we would provide in accordance with the wishes of the British government.


Robert James Manion: Yes; and we have provided a lot of it! We have not even got started providing it yet. The British would have come over here in their thousands to train. Then, when we wanted our young men-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I inform my hon. friend that last year, when the $6,000,000 vote was passed by this house, the British themselves only asked us to train fifty pilots.


Robert James Manion: I remember the minister saying that, but I remember also that Sir Kingsley Wood had said that 25,000 must be trained annually, and I pointed out last March that fifty was merely a fleabite. It was not a very elegant term, -but I used it. I say that the British would have sent over thousands to train here, and then, when we wanted our men trained, we could have sent them to the same schools to have them properly trained at little cost to us. On top of that, it would have meant the building up

Dissolution of Parliament
in Canada of a great industry for the production of planes, which industry is now being built up in the United States and in Great Britain itself. Here we are, a country with hundreds of thousands of unemployed looking for opportunities of work. The Prime Minister has this proposal put up to him by the British to come to their aid in a time of distress. He refused; and the British then started to do what they did not wish to do; they built up manufacturing plants for their planes' in their own country-manufacturing plants which they came over here with the intention of establishing in Canada. I learned when I was in England not long ago that on one occasion they came over here with a hundred million dollars' worth of orders for Canadian plants, but they received from the Prime Minister of Canada such a cold reception to this request that they refused to give any of those contracts at that time.
That is another reason why this government, I contend, has shown itself, in its preparation for and its carrying on of Canada's war effort, unfit to govern.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a strong case for a general election.


Robert James Manion: Yes

at the proper time. I am not objecting particularly to a general election. I am objecting to the tricky manner in which it is being called. I am objecting to the House of Commons being called together and then laughed at by the Prime Minister and-if you like-by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), in the face of all their talk across this country of the supremacy of this parliament. They are laughing at the House of Commons and at the supremacy of parliament. They tell parliament in session that they are going to pass under the War Measures Act regulations for the overseas soldiers' vote. What sense of fairness can we expect in a government which has done what it has done to-day with regard to this overseas vote?
However, I wish to close. I merely wanted to point out a few of the things which came into my head when the Prime Minister was speaking. All of them are mentioned in the speech from the throne. I say that the Prime Minister, in refusing the British the opportunity to train their pilots here, did what was unfair to the people of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I absolutely deny that there was any refusal to train pilots here. My hon. friend, by endless repetition of a statement of that kind, cannot give it any veracity.


Robert James Manion: Well, I can give it veracity by the right hon. gentleman's own words, and
before this election is over I will quote them over and over again. His words distinctly state that these proposals came from the British informally. He said that they came here; they were not requests, they were "proposals", or some such word as that, which anyway meant that; that they had carried on informal conversations with this government in Canada; and he said that he refused, on the ground of constitutional practice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that these informal conversations were within two or three weeks of the time I spoke here on the first of July.


Robert James Manion: He says that, Mr. Speaker, but where did the Vancouver Sun get its information a year before that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Probably from my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: No, I was not even in
politics then. I was not in the house and I knew nothing about it. They may have got it from the former minister of national defence, who sits near him, and who was out there about that time, and I have rather wondered if he did not give them the information in disgust at the refusal of this government to give the British government a decent break.
I repeat what I said at the beginning, that this is a most unfair procedure, unfair not only to the parliament of Canada but to the people of Canada, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that even now-he has not definitely said that he is going to dissolve the house to-night but I take it that he is-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think after my hon. friend's speech it would be advisable to.


Robert James Manion: I do not mind but if the right hon. gentleman will give a chance for the discussion to go on I will make a speech that will make him think it is even more advisable. If he wants something to hang his hat on I will give him something.
I say that it is the duty of the Prime Minister and his government to come before parliament and give an account of their stewardship.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is to go before the people of Canada.


Robert James Manion: The Prime Minister could
have gone before the people without making a joke of the members of this house, without calling them together from Vancouver in the west and from Halifax in the east.
Dissolution of Parliament


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And he would
have done that if he had not promised my hon. friend that he would not have an election before another session.


Robert James Manion: He promised that he would not have an election until another session of the house. Did he mean by that to hoodwink the members of this parliament? Was that his trickery? I say that if the Prime Minister meant to do what he is doing today he meant to hoodwink us and he was guilty of a despicable political trick.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My words were very clear and were made clear because of my responsibility in the matter. I pointed out that parliament would be called. What it was advisable to do when parliament was called would depend upon what had happened in the interval. It is because of what has happened in the interval-


Robert James Manion: What has happened in the interval? The right hon. gentleman has been violently attacked by the premier of Ontario. Is there anything new about that? So far as I am concerned I think Mr. Hepburn is right. I think he has been right all along, and never was I so sure that he is right as I am now made sure by this piece of political trickery of the Prime Minister to-day. It is running away from parliament; it is not facing the people.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. leader of the opposition has repeatedly used the word "trickery". I do not think that is parliamentary.


Ernest Lapointe: It would be all right in the legislature of Ontario.


Robert James Manion: I will withdraw the word, but I do not quite know what other word to substitute that will express my opinion. Perhaps your honour will help me out. I do not wish to be unparliamentary and will withdraw the word. I will say this, that never in the history of our country was there a more unparliamentary act than what the Prime Minister is doing here this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Never was
there a more responsible act.


Robert James Manion: Than what the right hon.
gentleman is doing?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Robert James Manion: If the right hon. gentleman will change the first syllable and make the word "irresponsible", I will agree.
I shall not take up any more of the time of the house. I am willing to let the people

decide. But I still think that in decency-I do not say that offensively-and as a matter of fair dealing with the House of Commons
and the parliamentary system in Great Britain and Canada the Prime Minister and his government should come back here, carry on the session and bring in legislation for taking the soldiers' votes overseas. Of course I shall be told: What did the other party do about the soldiers' votes? Because it is already implied that something unfair was done. I was not a member of any government prior to 1921, and had nothing to do with what was done at that time, but even if I had been a member of that government, is it any justification for doing something wrong now to say that something was done wrongly then? The whole defence of this government in nearly everything has been: But you people from 1914 to 1918 did worse-the old tu quoque argument. Have we not gone ahead at all; have we made no progress in democracy and decency in this country in the last twenty-five years? If there were mistakes or crookedness in those days-I am not denying that there may have been because I do not know much about it-surely that is all the more reason that such things should not be repeated now. That is my argument. This is a time to fight for democracy here at home. What is it going to profit us if we fight for democracy in Europe and lose it here in Canada? And that is what we are doing by such an act as the Prime Minister is pulling off today. He is endangering the whole democratic principle for which we are fighting along with Britain and France. The whole difference between Hitlerian dictatorship and our system is the difference between free speech and no free speech. The place for free speech is in the parliament of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is in the country.


Robert James Manion: It is in parliament since parliament has been called. We shall have it on the hustings too. But the place to have questions answered is here in parliament. With the parliament of Canada dissolved how can I get information, without any returns, without any questions being answered? I do not expect that any of the ministers will give me much help. The place to give that information is here in the House of Commons. The place to discuss these matters is here in the House of Commons. I submit that this government has been extravagant; it has been careless; not only has it been unprepared but it has been deplorably weak in carrying on the war activities of this country. I say that;

Dissolution of Parliament
and this is the place for me to get the information I want to prove my case, not out on the hustings where the ministers will simply deny that the facts are there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then my hon. friend is making his assertions without any proof?


Robert James Manion: I have plenty of proof.
If the right hon. gentleman will allow the session to go over until next week; if he will go back to his early affirmations of fair dealing and democratic principles which he used to talk so much about all across this country, and will live up to them this session, I will give him evidence in support of all the statements I have made.
I have nothing more to say. If it is the decision of the Prime Minister to dissolve the house to-night, we shall leave it in the mouths of the people to say which party they want to govern them and to carry on Canada's war effort. I venture to make this prophecy. In view of the unpreparedness of the government, in view of its weak war effort, and in view of the attempt of this government to put over this piece of trickery on a snap decision-I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker, for using the word "trickery," but I cannot think of any other word to express my opinion-in view of the government's act to-day in trying to bring about a snap decision without the members of this house being given a fair opportunity to get the information they seek and to discuss that information here in this house, I am convinced that not only the Prime Minister but his government will be swept out of power and some other group will be put in power to carry on the affairs of this country and Canada's war effort.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a point
of order.


Walter Edward Foster: I would draw the attention of the hon. member and of the house to the fact that the motion before the house is not debatable, and the hon. member can proceed only with the unanimous consent of the house. Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Dissolution of Parliament

I do know there is a great deal of dissatisfaction already, even before the war has begun in earnest. I suggest that the least this government can do is to give a full account of its stewardship during the last six months. During the special session which we had in September we had no opportunity of discussing the general affairs of the country. It is all very well to say that the war is all-important, but in Canada there are other important matters than the war; and the war will be successful only as there are people in the country who will support it. But the people are not contented to-day. I repeat, the least the government can do, if it is an honest government, is to give a direct account of its stewardship.
We are told that we cannot do what Great Britain does, that we cannot come together every few weeks, almost in continuous session, to discuss the affairs of the state. The government over there is subject to a barrage of criticism from the opposition and that has been generally considered to be a very good thing; ibut this government seems to avoid criticism. There is no reason why the acts of the last three months since war was declared should not be fully considered.
We are coming to the point where we are governed by order in council. The officials have been kind enough to send me advance copies of orders in council. They come to my desk almost daily. I cannot begin to keep track of them, they are so numerous. Some of these orders in council are taking away the fundamental rights of British people -the right to free speech, the right to free assembly, the right to the exercise of unionism under war conditions, and so on. This condition is coming to pass, and now we are to be denied the rights of parliament. We were taught in our school days that the Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights and similar instruments had settled all these matters forever for the British people, but it would seem as if each generation must make secure its own rights and fight these battles over again in new forms.
The people of the country are anxious to know how some of these war contracts have been let, and they have a right to know. A great many people in Canada want to know, and they have a right to know, how all these dollar-a-year men have been selected, what their qualifications are, and what are the advantages which an inside knowledge may give them. The people of the country want to know why it was that the government got away from the five per cent profit legislation. It may be all very well to say, "Oh, well), under the War Measures Act we can do

that"; but this five per cent profit limit was the considered position of this parliament a year ago. Under the War Measures Act apparently anything can be done and so the five per cent profit limit has been swept aside. What will come next? Is there any guarantee whatever?
We are told now that under the regulations in connection with the War Measures Act we are going to have an arrangement with regard to the vote of soldiers overseas. Why should there be any recourse to that procedure when parliament is now sitting? This is the place in which to do that sort of thing, but we are not to have the right to discuss these orders in council.
Some people have been quite enthusiastic over the recent bond issue. Three and a quarter per cent sounds very fine, but the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) the other day made a most revealing statement. I have a high regard for him, but it was one of the most cynical remarks I have ever heard broadcast throughout the country when he advocated "profitable patriotism". In the last war the various revelations that were made showed the profitable patriotism that had been manifested on the part of the bacon people, the boots people, and a whole lot of others; and now the Minister of Justice actually appeals to the cupidity of the Canadian people and says that we ought to have "profitable patriotism" in this country. It is a low motive to which to appeal.
There is something further I wish to say. If this parliament continues I shall say it at greater length on some future occasion. I desire to say something about the methods that have been used in Canada to compel young men to enlist. It is quite true that because of the opposition of the province of Quebec we have no conscription legislation on our books. But it is also true that in very many parts of the country men who have been on relief for years have been urged to enlist, and told that unless they enlist their relief will be cut off. That is the most despicable form of conscription I know of. I want to say a word for the youth of this country. The Prime Minister will probably rise in his place and say that we have no conscription in this country. No conscription? When thousands of our youth have been forced to enlist by the desperate alternative of enlisting or starving to death, it is time someone said something about the matter. These young fellows who are going to the war have a right to know what provision will be made for them when they come back. One of the bitterest things said to me was said by a returned man in my own

Dissolution of Parliament
city a few weeks ago. He said, "Yes, these young fellows that are going in now are very nattily dressed, they get good meals, they are provided for, they are heroes; but a whole lot of the fellows that went to the last war are eating in soup-kitchens." Yes, that is true. This government has been in office for years, and before it should be entrusted with another term of office it ought at least to give an account of its stewardship during the time the war has been in progress, and, indeed, for the last six months.
Free speech; the Prime Minister is urging that. Free parliament. I do not know what this order means to-day. I have been in the house for nearly twenty years, and for the life of me I do not know what is going to happen to-night, whether we are going to have a chance to debate an address in reply to the speech from the throne or not. We are all out of order. I do not know what is going to happen. There is an attempt to strangle free speech in this parliament, by shortening the session if not cutting it off absolutely. Having been called together we should remain here for a few weeks at least. What is the desperate need for hurrying this thing along? Is it in order that our people in the rural districts shall have to go out on the wintry roads in order to vote, an impossibility for many of them? Is it because there is a quarrel between the Prime Minister and the premier of Ontario? The latter gentleman sat in this house for some years. We all know he was quarrelling with the Prime Minister, but it is news to us that an election should be called and the whole country upset merely because Mr. Mitchell Hepburn says that the Prime Minister is not doing his duty. Surely the people of this country are not going to be hoodwinked by anything of that kind. If we have an election what freedom shall we have?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why does my hon. friend confine it to Mr. Hepburn?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, the leader of the Ontario opposition also.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What about the legislature of a province?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister is a good constitutionalist; let me ask him whether a provincial legislature has any right to interfere in matters like that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think it has, and that is one of the reasons why this government should make its authority clear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The people are not so concerned with niceties of that kind that they will be hoodwinked by such an excuse. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) pointed out, this defence of not calling an election before parliament was called together, and then claiming since it is called we can immediately have an election, makes me tired; and I think it will make the country tired. I do not mind facing an election, but do not let us resort to that kind of thing. Why does the government not come to this parliament, give an account of its stewardship, and then go to the country? It is here that the government ought to announce its policies for the coming election. The government ought to come out fairly in this parliament and say, We propose to do this, that and the other. Surely the government does not want a blank cheque. There ought to be a debate in this parliament on the government's proposals; when that is all over we can go to the country, having all spoken our minds, having all declared our several positions, and then the people will know what they are voting for. They do not now know.
The Prime Minister talks about free speech. Under the War Measures Act regulations today we are in a precarious position. How can I go to the country and say what I think about war; how can I discuss freely the shortcomings of the government without coming under those regulations? It cannot be done.


An hon. MEMBER:: And they know it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It cannot ba done; I am likely to be picked up by any local police officer, and if I were unfortunate enough to live in Ontario I would be prosecuted by the attorney general of tihat province. That might be an easy way of getting rid of people who do not agree with the government. Already the people of this country have been frightened. One of my own sons came back the other day from Scotland; he said to me: "You know it is astonishing, as soon as I landed on the shores of Canada I felt that in some way the people of Canada had been frightened, were afraid to speak out what they thought." He had come from Great Britain, where they are not afraid to speak what they think. As we all know, there is literature published in Great Britain and coming to this country that is banned in this dominion. It is a ridiculous situation. Does anyone think the mother of parliaments over there would stand for this kind of thing? We are told that Canada is fighting on the side of Great Britain to save democracy; fighting for liberty, free speech, free institutions. We
Dissolution of Parliament

are told that we have no fight with the German people, but that the trouble with the German people is that they are too submissive, too subservient, that they will take whatever is handed to them by the fuehrer. Are we to become so subservient that we have a virtual dictatorship set up in this country? As I look across at the Prime Minister he does not look like a dictator-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: But he is one.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -he does not speak like one, but he is acting like a dictator today. This government is strong; it can carry on for another six months without any extension of power of any kind; but the fact that this government is strong here in Ottawa and the Liberal party is strong in a number of the provinces is no reason why it should use its strength to put over something that is essentially in contradiction to British practice and parliamentary institutions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) that I have the assurance of
the under-secretary of state that a copy of the speech from the throne was delivered at his office the moment his excellency began to read the speech.


Robert James Manion: I was in the senate
chamber listening to his excellency.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But it was sent to my hon. friend's office and received by his secretary.


Robert James Manion: It should have been sent
at least an hour in advance.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do we sit to-night?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my hon. friend that I intend to have my colleagues meet with me immediately and decide what is best to do with respect to further proceedings in this parliament in the light of the kind of discussion we have listened to this afternoon.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The eighteenth parliament was dissolved on
Thursday, January 25, 1940, by proclamation of His Excellency the Governor General.

tousle of Commons Bebateg



ELECTION OF SPEAKER

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Doctor Beauchesne, at the beginning of a new parliament the first duty of the Commons is to ascertain the reasons why
the king's representative-who at the moment happens to be His Excellency the Administrator-has summoned its members to meet him in parliament. We have just been told in another place that his excellency does not see fit to disclose the causes until, in accordance with custom, this house has elected its Speaker. As a matter of fact, until a Speaker has been chosen, the Commons is not yet constituted as a house. Parliament itself cannot be said to be properly constituted until the House of Commons has chosen its Speaker. Therefore our immediate duty is to proceed to elect a Speaker.
As hon. members who have been in previous parliaments are well aware, the custom in the Canadian parliament in the selection of a Speaker is somewhat different from that which is followed at Westminster, the customs of which parliament, in most particulars, we usually follow. At Westminster the practice is to do the Speaker of the previous house the honour of reelecting him at each succeeding parliament, provided that he retains his seat in the House of Commons. I recall particularly the occasion on which Mr. Speaker Lowt'her of the British House of Commons visited Canada and on behalf of the parliamentary association presented this House of Commons with the chair since occupied by the Speaker and which is a replica of the Speaker's chair at Westminster. Mr. Speaker Lowther informed us, addressing the members from the floor of this house, that for sixteen years he had been Speaker of the House of Commons at Westminster and that during that period of time he had not once left the precincts of the house while either house of parliament was in session. Here in Canada we have followed the practice of electing a new Speaker at the beginning of each parliament. There have been but three exceptions in this house: Mr. Speaker Cockburn, Mr. Speaker Rhodes and Mr. Speaker Lemieux were all reappointed Speakers at a succeeding parliament.

Election oj Speaker

In our country there is also a reason why it has been thought advisable to alternate Speakers. In the main the people of Canada are descended from two great races, the English and the French. It has been the practice because of this to have in one parliament a Speaker whose mother tongue is English, and in the following parliament a Speaker whose mother tongue is French.
There is another respect in which the practice in Canada in the selection of a Speaker differs from the practice at Westminster. At Westminster the nomination of the Speaker is made by a private member; in Canada we have adopted the practice of having the Speaker nominated by a member of the government, as a matter of fact, by the Prime Minister.
However, this difference is not in any way intended to imply any restriction of the freedom of members to make whatever choice they wish. The Speaker of the house is not appointed by the government, he is elected by the Commons. Members of the house are entirely free to make whatever choice they wish. I shall, however, propose a name which I believe will be acceptable to the house generally.
I need not say how important is the position of the Speaker. It is the most honourable and highest office in t'he gift of the House of Commons. The Speaker is the first commoner; he is also the presiding officer of this house. In that capacity he has the custodianship of the honour, the rights, the privileges and the prerogatives of the house. It is his duty to maintain an attitude of impartiality as between members, regardless of party. It is his duty to protect the rights of members as a whole, and the rights of each individual member. Clearly in such a position one should possess qualities of good judgment and a judicial temperament. The Speaker moreover must be familiar with the rules of the house and have a thorough knowledge of parliamentary procedure. He should, I believe, be chosen if possible in the light of experience he is known to have gained by participation in the affairs of parliament itself. He should be a man of quick perceptions and be at once conciliatory and firm, tactful and just.
I am about to propose the name of a gentleman who, I believe, possesses to quite an exceptional degree this rare combination of qualities. The name is that of Mr. James Allison Glen, the member for Marquette. Mr. Glen has sat in previous parliaments and has been a member of this house for a number of years. In filling positions of this kind if circumstances so permit, it is desirable that

recognition should be accorded older members of parliament, especially where in the course of the discharge of their public duties they have become known to possess special qualifications and aptitude for the position in question. Mr. Glen, as we all know, has taken a deep interest in the proceedings of parliament. He has participated in a fair manner in the debates. He has had large experience on committees of the House of Commons. Mr. Glen has had besides training in another particular which should qualify him iu special measure for a position which requires the capacity for the judicial management of affairs. In addition to his parliamentary experience he is a prominent member of the bar of Manitoba, a leading Icing's counsel in that province. That legal training will be of real service to him and to the house in his occupancy of the position of Speaker, should he be elected to that position. He possesses another qualification which I think hon. members appreciate is very important in a Speaker; that is quick perception, the ability to grasp promptly points which are being discussed and to give, I shall not say offhand decisions, but quick decisions where such are demanded. By reason of his parliamentary and legal experience we may expect from him a sound and judicial attitude towards the different questions with which he may be called to deal.
I might say much more of Mr. Glen; he possesses other qualifications which we all know very well; I shall content myself, however, by saying that I feel that he does possess both in character and experience the qualities which will make him, if he is elected, an admirable Speaker, qualities which will enable him to fill that high office with dignity and due authority, with credit and distinction to himself and to this House of Commons and with honour to our parliament.
I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East):
That James Allison Glen, Esquire, K.C., member representing the electoral district of Marquette, do take the chair of this house as Speaker.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) :: Doctor Beauchesne, gentlemen of the House of Commons; I rise not to oppose the motion now before you, but rather for the express purpose of supporting it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been good enough to outline some of the functions and duties of the first commoner of the Canadian House of Commons, as patterned on the mother of parliaments. He has named as his nominee, or the nominee of the government, a gentleman who has had long experi-

Election oj Speaker
ence in its proceedings. The office of Speaker, as the Prime Minister has intimated, is an important one. It is not only important, but it is an old and honourable one; its history goes back for generations in our parliamentary life. Formerly the primary duty of Mr. Speaker was to protect the rights and privileges of the House of Commons as against the crown; that is to say, that is its historical background. This duty, however, is more or less obsolete in this twentieth century, because the privileges of the commons are now universally recognized. To-day the duties of the Speaker are primarily judicial in character. They are not executive; they do not partake of the administrative, except with respect to the internal economy of the house. Mr. Speaker has first of all to preside over the deliberations of this house. He must maintain the decorum and dignity of the house. He must protect the membership of the house from insult and indignity both within the house and without. Above everything else, in his judicial capacity he must maintain an equal balance among all the parties in this house. Briefly these are what I conceive to be the functions of Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) who has been nominated by the Prime Minister, in my opinion possesses these qualities in a high degree. He has had, I believe, a long and honourable career in his profession, which must have brought him into contact with conditions and situations which would give him an insight into what judicial conduct really means. As the Prime Minister has intimated, he has had also a long and extensive experience in this house. I believe he possesses the qualifications necessary to make a competent Speaker to preside over our deliberations. What we in this part of the chamber desire to impress upon him is this, that we in common with other parties shall be treated with that even-handed British justice which is so essential to the carrying on harmoniously of the deliberations of this house. If he conforms to the best traditions of his office, as I believe he will, we shall do our utmost to assist him in maintaining the dignities, the liberties and the privileges of the house. Personally I wish the hon. member for Marquette well.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Doctor Beauchesne, it is perhaps hardly necessary for us to say much after what has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Hanson). We in our group support the nomination of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen). The leader of the opposition has suggested that
95826-u
one of the old-time functions of a speaker was to protect the commons against the crown. I suppose that function is largely obsolete, but we believe that an important function of the speaker to-day is to have a sense of impartiality and to protect the minorities against the government. That may be highly necessary in a house of this composition. From our knowledge of the hon,. member for Marquette through the years we are assured that he will recognize the high responsibility that will rest upon him as speaker, and we wish him every success in his new office.
Mr. J. II. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge): Doctor Beauchesne, the members of my group feel that if the reputation which was so well established by the Speaker who occupied the chair in the last parliament is maintained by the hon. gentleman who is now to take the chair we shall be fully satisfied. We realize that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) has been nominated by the same right hon. gentleman who nominated his predecessor; we therefore expect that the same wisdom has been exercised in this selection as in the case of the former Speaker. The hon. member for Marquette has established a reputation for geniality and good nature among the members which has caused him to be well liked. At the same time he has the poise and dignity which cause men generally to respect him. We feel that these are qualities which are required in one holding the position of Speaker of this house, and I do not doubt for one moment either the hon. gentleman's disposition or his ability at all times to be fair in his judgments and impartial in his decisions. Therefore, Doctor Beauchesne, our group will support this motion.
The Clerk of the House declared the motion carried in the affirmative, nemine contradi-cente, and Hon. James Allison Glen, member for the electoral district of Marquette, duly elected to the chair of the house.
Hon. Mr. Glen was conducted from his seat in the house to the Speaker's chair by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe.
Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT said: Gentlemen of the House of Commons, I beg to return my humble acknowledgments to the house for the great honour you have been pleased to confer upon me by unanimously choosing me to be your Speaker.
The unanimity which has been expressed from all sides of the house of my appointment to the high office of Speaker of this House of Commons imposes upon me duties so grave
Lender nj the Opposition

and serious that I approach my task with very real humility and a profound consciousness of my own limitations.
In the days to come, I shall endeavour to discharge those duties in a manner not unbefitting our British parliamentary traditions, and, above all, I shall keep ever before me that, as presiding officer, I must exercise fairness and impartiality as between all members in the House of Commons and be, as has been said in this house "the protector of the rights of every individual member." I fully realise that only strict observance of these obligations will enable me to gain and retain the confidence and receive the advice, counsel and assistance of all hon. members, without which no Speaker can govern the conduct and decorum of this house.
To obtain that confidence I shall conscientiously strive and so far as in me lies I shall endeavour to prove worthy of the trust which you have this day committed to me.



LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, to adjourn this house with a view to having it sit again to-day would under the rules require a formal notice of twenty-four hours. In the circumstances I propose to move that the house suspend its sitting until three o'clock. Before, however, that action is taken, I should like to avail myself of the earliest possible opportunity to extend to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) my warmest congratulations-and in so doing I fepeak also on behalf of all hon. members on this side of the house, and I think I may say on behalf of the house as a whole-upon the confidence which has been expressed in him by the members of his party and upon his assumption to-day of the office of leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this House of Commons.
May I say to my hon. friend that his choice as the one to become the leader of the opposition at this time did not come at all as a surprise to those of us who have been with him in previous parliaments. My hon. friend has had great experience in parliamentary life; indeed I imagine that only a few members of this house have served for a longer time in parliament. Though not a member in the last parliament, the present leader of the opposition has been in this house for a period of some fourteen or fifteen years. During that time he has taken a very active part in its proceedings. We know him to be a forceful debater; we know he has been

very active in the proceedings of the commons generally. He has occupied important positions, as chairman of different committees of the house, and as a minister of the crown. If I am not mistaken my hon. friend is one of the two members of his party in this house to-day who have held portfolios in previous administrations. I should, of course, say that three hon. members opposite have been members of a previous administration, but I think only two of them actually held portfolios. My hon. friend was Minister of Trade and Commerce for a year or more in Mr. Bennett's administration. His present desk-mate, the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) was Minister of National Defence in Mr. Bennett's administration for about the same time. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) became a member of the same administration, but unfortunately for him there was a change in the administration before there was time to have him given a portfolio.
The parliamentary experience of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition will be of the greatest value, not only to him in the position which he now occupies but also to the House of Commons itself. I think I may say that no one in this house has a better knowledge of the responsibilities and anxieties which go with the position now occupied by my hon. friend than I have. For some seven years in all, I had the privilege of occupying the seat which he now occupies, so I know something of what is expected of a leader of the opposition and, as I have said, something as well of his responsibilities and anxieties.
Speaking of responsibilities and anxieties I think I may say that at this time of great peril in the affairs of the world, at this very solemn hour, all of us who are members of this parliament will be conscious alike of responsibilities and anxieties which I am equally sure it will be our desire to share. Just as the few free nations that still remain and those that until recently were free are looking for all the help they can get; just as England and France are sharing to the full the burdens of the struggle in which they are engaged; just as 'the British commonwealth of nations needs the effective cooperation of its every part, so we who are members of the government, with 'the great responsibilities we must bear at this time, are more conscious than we ever have been of the need for cooperation and help from hon. members in all parts of the house, and from none more than from the leader of the opposition and those Who sit around him,
A few moments ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) mentioned that he and others might require

Leader oj the Opposition
the assistance of the Speaker to protect the minorities against the government. May I say to him that I am inclined to feel that the government may need the protection of the Speaker against the minorities. Seriously, however, I greatly hope that in this parliament at least we may not be as conscious of minorities and majorities as perhaps it has been found necessary to be in some previous parliaments, but rather that all may feel a profound sense of collective responsibility.
In this connection may I point out that the position of leader of the opposition is a most important one in the system of government as we have it under our constitution and is so recognized by statute. As hon. members are aware, the leader of the opposition holds a position which in degree of responsibility is, I should say, second only to that of the Prime Minister in the management of the affairs of the House of Commons.
Responsibility for government does not mean monopoly of government. In parliament, particularly in most critical times like the present, everyone can make some contribution to the needs of the day, and indeed will be expected to do so fearlessly and to the best of his ability. To a great extent an opposition can help a government in shaping the policies which may be best for the administration of public affairs. We shall not expect from the leader of the opposition the kind or degree of support which naturally we will expect from our own party. We will not expect to be exempted from criticism. Indeed one of the great functions of an opposition is that it may help to safeguard the proceedings of a government and that by its constructive criticism may prevent what might otherwise be in the nature of hasty or ill-conceived action, or what some might feel to be a lack of sufficient action.
We shall not expect, I say, to escape criticism, but I believe I am speaking for all hon. members when I say that I hope the house will be spared anything in the nature of recriminations. In the light of the great problems with which we are faced at this time, it would be our hope that criticism will be constructive.
In conclusion may I say that the cooperation which we believe we will receive from members in all parts of the house will be reciprocated in the fullest measure possible by the government. It will be our effort to work together in this House of Commons as one body of citizens who have, first and foremost in their hearts, the interests of their country, the interests of the great empire to which we all belong, the interests of free nations, and the interests of freedom throughout the world.


Olof Hanson: Mr. Speaker, at the very outset I desire to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for his kind personal references to myself. I believe no one recognizes more than I do his own limitations, but because it is the unanimous wish of my colleagues that I assume this important duty, after the fullest and gravest consideration I have agreed to accept the responsibilities that have been placed upon me. I shall endeavour to discharge the function of the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition not only in accordance with the best of my ability but, I hope, in accordance with the highest traditions of the office.
As the Prime Minister has said, we are meeting under extremely critical conditions. The whole of the civilized world is in a turmoil. Members of that group of free democracies of which we pride ourselves we form a part, are being attacked in the most vicious and violent manner that can be imagined by the human mind. As the senior dominion and an integral part of the British empire, Canada, along with our mother country and our gallant allies, is being attacked. It is the duty of Canadians, the duty of this parliament, the duty of the government charged with responsibility for the time being and, as I conceive it, my duty as the leader of his majesty's opposition, to render to the cause of liberty and freedom the very best that is in us.
Canada's participation in this great conflict which, I fear, may grow successively worse instead of better, should be bound only by our limitations in men, in treasure and in concentrated efforts. That, in my opinion, should be our one and undivided aim in the course of this, perhaps the most important session of parliament in the history of our dominion.
Of course we shall want to know what is going on. We shall expect from the administration a full accounting of its stewardship during the past seven or eight months. The Canadian people are asking for that. I fear that they have been too complacent during the early period of the war. However, now that the shock of this tremendous conflict is being borne in upon them, and through them to us, they desire to know the measure of effort Canada is putting forth at this time.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the house suspend its sitting until three o'clock this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At one p.m. the sitting was suspended until three p.m. this day.
Speech from the Throne
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker read a communication from the assistant secretary to the Governor General, announcing that His Excellency the Administrator would proceed to the Senate chamber at three p.m. on this day, for the purpose of formally opening the session of the dominion parliament.
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Administrator desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate chamber. Then the Hon. James Allison Glen, Speaker-elect, said:
May it please your Excellency,
The House of Commons have elected me as their Speaker, though I am but little able to fulfil the important duties thus assigned to me. If in the performance of those duties I should at any time fall into error, I pray that the fault may be imputed to me, and not to the Commons whose servant I am.
The Honourable the Speaker of the Senate, addressing the Honourable the Speaker of the House, then said:
Mr. Speaker, I am commanded by His Excellency the Administrator to assure you that your words and actions will constantly receive from him the most favourable construction.
Then His Excellency the Administrator was pleased to open parliament by a speech from the throne.
And the house being returned to the Commons chamber:
Walter Edward Foster: I have the honour to state that the house having attended on His Excellency -the Administrator in the Senate Chamber, I informed his excellency that the choice of Speaker had fallen upon me, and in your names and on your behalf I made the usual claim for your privileges, which his excellency was pleased to confirm to you.



OATHS OF OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 1, respecting the administration of oaths of office.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Walter Edward Foster: I have the honour to
inform the house that when the house did attend His Excellency the Administrator this day in the Senate chamber, his excellency was pleased to make a speech to both houses of parliament. To prevent mistakes, I have obtained a copy, which is as follows: Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
You have been summoned to the first session of a new parliament at a time of the greatest conflict in the history of mankind. Upon the outcome of the struggle will depend the maintenance of civilized society and the inheritance of human freedom for our own and future generations.
Since parliament last met, the nature of the conflict, the character of the enemy, and the perils w'hich menace all free nations, have become only too clear. In that short space of time, the world has seen the peaceful and peace-loving peoples of Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg made the victims of the treachery and barbarism which have marked the successive outrages of nazi Germany. It has also witnessed the invasion of Finland, and, despite the epic resistance of its heroic population, the partition of that unoffending country. At any time, the lust of conquest may vastly enlarge the theatre of war. These tragic events have but served to intensify our determination to share in the war effort of the allied powers to the utmost of our strength. In this resolution the government has been fortified by tire direct and unquestioned mandate of the Canadian people.
The organization and prosecution of Canada's war effort have commanded the unremitting attention of my ministers. The constant consultation and complete cooperation maintained with the governments of the United Kingdom and France have been materially strengthened by the recent visit to those countries of my Minister of National Defence.
You will be fully informed of Canada's action both in the military and economic fields. You will be asked to consider measures deemed essential for the prosecution of the war, and for the social and economic requirements of the country.
While the present session of parliament will necessarily be mainly concerned with Canada's war effort, and the measures essential to the achievement of ultimate victory, my ministers are of opinion that, despite what to-day is being witnessed of concentrated warfare, it is desirable, as far as may be possible, to plan for the days that will follow the cessation of hostilities.
As a contribution to industrial stability in time of war, and to social security and justice in time of peace, resolutions will be introduced for an amendment to the British North America Act which would empower the parliament of Canada to enact at the present session legislation to establish unemployment insurance on a national scale.
The report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, which has just been received, will be tabled immediately.

Internal Economy Commission
Members of tlie House of Commons:
YTou will be asked to make financial provision for expenditure necessitated by the existing state of war.
The estimates for the current fiscal year will be submitted to you without delay.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
Since the last session of parliament, a much beloved Governor General has passed from our midst. In the death of Lord Tweedsmuir, Canada mourns one whose character and achievements had endeared him to our people; the British commonwealth has lost a wise and understanding counsellor, and the fellowship of writers a gifted interpreter of the graces and humanities of English literature. I join with you in the expression to Lady Tweedsmuir and the members of her family of the deep sympathy of the Canadian people.
His Majesty the King has been pleased to appoint the Earl of Athlone as His Representative in succession to the late Lord Tweeds-muir. The sense of duty and the public services which have distinguished the lives of the Governor General designate and the Princess Alice ensure for His Excellency and Her Royal Highness an eager and cordial welcome to Canada.
As you assume, in these dark and difficult days, the grave responsibilities with which you have been entrusted by the Canadian people, may your resolution be sustained by the knowledge that it is the liberties of all free peoples that you are helping to preserve. Unless the evil powers, which threaten the very existence of freedom, are vanquished, the world itself will inevitably be reduced to a state of international anarchy.
I pray that Divine Providence may guide and bless your deliberations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the order for the consideration of the motion for an address to His Excellency the Administrator in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, have precedence over all other business, except introduction of bills, until disposed of.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a special committee be appointed to prepare and report with all convenient speed lists of members to compose the standing committees of this house, under standing order 63, said committee to be composed of Messrs. Mackenzie	(Vancouver Centre), Casgrain,
Casselman	(Grenville-Dundas), Taylor and
Douglas (Weyburn).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) presented the following message from His Excellency the Administrator:
The Administrator transmits to the House of Commons a certified copy of an approved minute of council appointing the Honourable T. A. Crerar, Minister of Mines and Resources, the Right Honourable Ernest Lapointe, Minister of Justice, the Honourable J. L. Ralston, Minister of Finance, and the Honourable J. L. Ilsley, Minister of National Revenue, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purposes and under the provisions of chapter 145 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, intituled An Act Respecting the House of Commons.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I table herewith the report of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. The report is contained in three large printed volumes. There are in addition a very large number of volumes which constitute the appendices.


Olof Hanson: Do the appendices contain the evidence?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I cannot answer that question. I may tell my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that as yet I have not had an opportunity of opening the report to see what is in it, let alone the appendices; but I will give him the information later.


Olof Hanson: I hope it does not turn out to be just another royal commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The report is tabled in both English and French. It was received on the tenth of this month, and at the time of its receipt I sent copies to members of the press gallery of this house so that they might have an opportunity of preparing in advance the resumes which they might wish to send to their newspapers throughout the country. I also had copies of the report and the appendices sent to the premiers of the several provinces so that they would be received this morning, before the tabling of the report in this house this afternoon.


Mr. IIANSON (York-Sunbury):: Have a
sufficient number of copies of the report of the royal commission been printed so that at least each member of parliament will have a copy of this historic document?
War Measures Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Copies of the report are being sent to all hon. members. In fact, I am not at all sure that they have not already been sent out from the distribution office.



WAR MEASURES ACT


[Stage Direction]
august 25, 1939
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to table the orders
in council passed under the authority of the War Measures Act since August 25, 1939. In January I tabled in typewritten form such orders in council as had been passed up to the end of the year 1939. Since then those orders in council have been printed, and they will be tabled in printed form. The orders in council passed since the end of last year, up to and including May 11 of this year, are being tabled in typewritten form.


Olof Hanson: It would greatly facilitate my perusing the orders in council if at the time they are tabled a copy should be handed to me. Would that be in order?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As these orders in council have been passed copies have been immediately forwarded to the office of the leader of the opposition and also to the leaders of other groups in the house. I shall make quite certain that my hon. friend obtains a complete set.


Olof Hanson: I thank
my right hon. friend for his courtesy.



VACANCIES

Walter Edward Foster: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received communications from several members, notifying me that the following vacancies had occurred in the representation, viz:
Of Walter George Brown, member for the electoral district of Saskatoon City, by decease ;
Of Alonzo Bowen Hvndman, member for the electoral district of Carleton, Ontario, by decease.
I accordingly issued my several warrants to the chief electoral officer to make out new writs of election for the said electoral districts, respectively.



ACTING DEPUTY SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

Walter Edward Foster: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have appointed J. Laundy to be acting deputy sergeant-at-arms during the present session.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 4.04 p.m.

Friday, May 17, 1940

Mr. Speaker read a communication from the Governor General's secretary, announcing that His Excellency the Governor General would proceed to the Senate chamber at three p.m. on this day, for the purpose of formally opening the session of the dominion parliament.
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod,
as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And the house being returned to the Commons chamber: