1942-02-20

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have a statement I
should like to make to the house. Now that the debate on the address has been completed, I have been concerned with what I am sure has been evident to all members of the house, namely, the breach of the rule which deals with the reading of speeches. I would refer hon. members to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, at page 95, citation 293, which states:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this standing order, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(o) read from a written, previously prepared speech.
As long ago as April 19, 1886, a resolution was adopted by the house, which reads:
That the growing practice in the Canadian House of Commons of delivering speeches of great length, having the character of carefully and elaborately prepared written essays, and indulging in voluminous and often irrelevant extracts, is destructive of legitimate and pertinent debate upon public questions, is a waste of valuable time, unreasonably lengthens the sessions of parliament, threatens by increased bulk and cost to lead to the abolition of the official report of the debates, encourages a discursive and diffuse, rather than an incisive and concise style of public speaking, is a marked contrast to the practice in regard to debate that prevails in the British House of Commons, and tends to repel the public from a careful and intelligent consideration of the proceedings of parliament.
During the course of the debate members have been reading from manuscripts without

Precedence jor Government Business
regard to the rule, and all sides of the house have practised it. I think that I express the general sense of the house when I say that this practice is to be deplored. It is true that the debate just completed was very important, as hon. members are likely to be quoted thereafter for their attitude now, and in consequence they wish to have the written word before them rather than rely on the inspiration of the moment to find the proper expressions. I wish to intimate to the house that I shall have to insist upon members observing the rule. I realize the difficulty of enforcing it and the chair can only do so with the positive support of all members.
On a former occasion I agreed, and the house consented, that when important statements involving government policy are made by ministers on behalf of the government, such statements could be read rather than expressed extemporaneously. This practice is,
I understand, being followed in the British House of Commons and it has been extended here to include statements made by the official leader of the opposition, whose status is regulated by section 42 of the Senate and House of Commons Act, chapter 147.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. That is standing order 37, which reads:
No member except the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister or a member making a motion of ' no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
The house in generous mood usually consents to an extension of this rule beyond the forty minutes. But I feel that hon. members rely upon the indulgence of the house to obtain extra time. It may be that some ministerial statements require a longer period than forty minutes, and it would be inappropriate and perhaps inadvisable that the rule should be applied to them Here, again, however, I think all such ministerial statements should be prepared in view of and be in conformity with the rules of the house. I must, therefore, point out that the Chair should not be placed in a position where discrimination is necessary and hon. members must realize that with every right to be heard in the house, such hearing must be subject to the rules of the house.



MAIN ESTIMATES 1942-43

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the
financial year ending March 31, 1943, was presented by Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the 'house I should like to move the following motion:
That on and after Monday, the twenty-third of February, 1942, to the end of the present session government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence at every sitting over all other business except the introduction of bills, questions by members, and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had rather
assumed that in the absence of this notice the government would have been disposed to give a few days to the discussion of private members' motions. I know the practice we followed in the previous sessions of this parliament. At the first session we were all very much obsessed and upset by the course of the war and I agreed to the waiving of the rule at that time. At the second session the Prime Minister urged the same reasons for such a motion, and now after almost a month or four weeks of this session, private members, in the absence of any notice to the contrary, had assumed, I think, that some provision would be made for discussion of their motions. My hon. friend the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) has a motion on the order paper which he is prepared to discuss on Monday, and which in the absence of this notice he had the right to assume he would be within his rights in presenting to the house. I do think that the Prime Minister should not press this motion to-day but leave at least one day open for the discussion, of private members' motions. It is not very much to ask for. I do not see how otherwise we could get consent to this motion being brought down at such a late date. I would ask the Prime Minister to let private members have at least one Monday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that this matter was raised1 at an early stage of the session and at the time I replied, as I recall it, to the effect that the arguments which had weighed with the Commons in previous years were even stronger this year, and I assumed that the house would so regard them. I must say that the government does so regard them. We believe that
732	COMMONS
Precedence for Government Business
the international situation is more critical at this time than it has been at any other time since the commencement of the war and that government business ought to be proceeded with as rapidly as possible, particularly that part of it which relates directly to the war.
Much has been said in the debate on the address about the time that must elapse before the plebiscite can be held. A month has been taken in debate on the address, in which private members have had the opportunity to speak on different matters, and if I were to meet my hon. friend's wish and have Monday next devoted to private members' resolutions, that would again delay the progress of the legislation with respect to the plebiscite.
I expect to announce a little later this afternoon that a secret sitting of the house will be held on Tuesday afternoon. I must say that I think hon. members will upon reflection see that there are strong reasons why the time of the house should not be taken up with a discussion of private members' resolutions until at least very considerable headway has been made with government business.
As to the particular request which my hon. friend has made in respect to one of the members of his party who had expected to speak to his motion on Monday, it will be recognized at once that were I to meet his wish, much as I might desire to, I would be discriminating against other hon. members who may equally wish to speak on their motions, some of which may even appear on the order paper before that of my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, his is No. 1.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, if we allow No. 1 to proceed, No. 2 will wish to have his say as well. I would ask the house to consent to the passing of this motion to-day so that on Monday we may continue with government business.


Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, if I may say a word. I agree with the Prime Minister that the house has had a very long debate in which a number of matters have been discussed thoroughly. I think now the country would expect us to get on with government business connected with the war. We should proceed without delay. But I do say this to the Prime Minister, that opportunity should be given to the private members to move their resolutions on the order paper, and I would suggest that, either by consent or by a change in the rules, time be allowed towards the end 
of the session for private members to present and debate their motions. There are occasions during the session, too, when government business is not always ready for presentation to the house, and it might be possible on such occasions, if sufficient notice were given to members who have resolutions on the order paper, to allow them to be proceeded with I hen. But I would urge that all of us forego the particular matters which we wish to discuss that are not related to the war effort and that we make every effort to speed up the business of the house, which, I take it, at the present session will be devoted mainly to the war. So far as we are concerned we shall be glad to support the government in speeding up its efforts in that regard.
So far as resolution No. 1 on the order paper is concerned, we are very much interested in that motion, but I understand that a statement will be made regarding its subject matter, and may I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) that it be made as soon as possible.
With these qualifications we agree to what the Prime Minister has suggested.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I find that the hon. member for Rose-town-biggar (Mr. Coldwell) does not give me any support, and I certainly do not want to be the hold-out. I am not usually that type. I have just conferred with my colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), and while he is anxious to debate his resolution he advises me that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has given an undertaking that the wheat question will be the subject of a bill which will be brought down, and debated in due course and referred, I understand, to the committee on agriculture. At that time he will have the opportunity which the moving of his resolution would have afforded him in the house. On that theory he is quite content to waive any rights he has. Of course, if notice of this motion had been given yesterday, we would not be having this debate at the moment. Rather reluctantly I am going to give my consent to the motion of the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this house has appointed the Honourable the Speaker and

Secret Session of the House
Messrs. Black (Yukon), Dupuis, Edwards, Farquhar, Furniss, Goulet, Howden, Jaques, Laflamme, Lafontaine, Macdonald (Brantford City), Maclnnis, McGregor, Mclvor, Mayhew, Pinard, Purdy, Rheaume, Thauvette, Tucker and Tustin, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, so far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members of the standing committee on printing, viz., Messieurs Bereovitch, Bertrand (Terrebonne), Blanchette, Bourget, Casselman (Grenville-Dundas), Castleden, Chambers, Chevrier, Clax-ton, Corman, Denis, Dubois, Dupuis, Durocher, Edwards, Emmerson, Esling, Evans, Ferland, Fleming, Fraser (Peterborough West), Furniss, Goulet, Grant, Green, Halle, Healy, Hlynka, Hoblitzell, Hurtubise, Kuhl, Leader, Mac-Diarmid, MacKinnon (Kootenay East), MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria), McGregor, McNevin (Victoria, Ont.), Mills, Moore, Muloek, Nicholson, Purdy, Rheaume, Ross (St. Paul's), Sinclair, Sissons, Soper, Tucker, Tustin, Weir, White, Whitman, Winkler and Wood, will act as members on the part of this house, on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed the honourable the Speaker and Messieurs Adamson, Aylesworth, Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Bruce, Cardiff, Casselman (Grenville-Dundas), Castleden, Emmerson, Eudes, Farquhar, Fontaine, Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Gershaw, Goulet, Graham, Green, Henderson, Howden, Hurtubise, Jaques, Jean, Lizotte, Macdonald (Halifax), MacKenzie (Neepawa), MacKenzie (Lambton-Kent), Macmillan, Marier, Martin, Mayhew, Moore, Poirier, Pouliot, Purdy, Raymond, Reid, Rickard, Ross (St. Paul's), Shaw, Telford, Thauvette, Warren, Winkler, Wood and Woods-worth a committee to assist his honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament, so far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on any day set aside for that purpose by the house without notice having been previously given, the sitting of the house shall be a secret session until the house shall then otherwise order, and that all strangers be ordered to withdraw during such secret session; provided however, that this order shall not affect the privilege enjoyed by members of the Senate of being present at debates in this house.
He said: This resolution is similar to one which was passed by this house during the war, in 1918, when a secret session of the House of Commons was held. The motion at that time fixed a definite day. The present motion, as hon. members will see, leaves the date to be arranged by agreement.
In the British House of Commons, in order to protect secrecy, there has been passed under the authority of the Emergency Power (Defence) Act, 1939, the following regulation:
His Majesty, in pursuance of section one of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and of all other pow'ers enabling him in that behalf, is pleased, by and with the advice of his privy council, to order, and it is hereby ordered that regulation three of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939 (a), shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were inserted the following paragraphs:-
(2) If either house of parliament in pursuance of a resolution passed by that house holds a secret session, it shall not be lawful for any person in any newspaper, periodical, circular or other publication, or in any public speech, to publish any report of, or to purport to describe, the proceedings at that session, except such report or description thereof as may be officially communicated through the press and censorship bureau.
The government has thought it advisable to enact a similar regulation, adding it to the defence of Canada regulations, in the following terms:
. 39AA. If the Senate or House of Commons, in pursuance of a resolution, holds a secret session, no person shall in any newspaper, periodical, circular or other publication, or in any public speech, publish any report or description of the proceedings at that session, except such report or description thereof as may be officially communicated through the Speaker of the House.
As to the time of the secret session, I have had a conference with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and also with the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group (Mr. Coldwell) and the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore), and we have agreed that Tuesday afternoon would be the most convenient time at which to
Secret Session of the House

hold the secret session. I might say there is a special reason for selecting Tuesday, inasmuch as the Senate has been adjourned until Tuesday next, and as senators will have the privilege of being present in the gallery when the secret session is held, it would obviously be desirable to have the sitting held on a day that senators were likely to be here. I have nothing else to add at the moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not rise for the purpose of either debating or opposing the resolution to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has referred. I note that the terms of the resolution are quite general; it does not limit the action of the house to any one particular secret session, but it contemplates other secret sessions if they are found necessary or desirable or are asked for. I did not understand that such would be in the motion; however, I am not objecting to that, because it may become necessary to hold further secret sessions.
I am not at all optimistic that a secret session will be of great value, because it seems to me that we cannot possibly use any information which we get there-especially in view of the amendment to the defence of Canada regulations to which the Prime Minister has alluded. At the same time, it will afford to hon. members an opportunity of putting questions to the ministers, and I hope that some useful purpose will be served.
I am curious to know who will prepare the official report which is to be given to the public.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Speaker.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It says that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not in the
resolution; in the order in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, the order in council? I have not had that before me. It, of course, will be official, coming from that source. I am content to leave the matter at that for the moment.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I am
opposed to the passage of this proposed motion for the reason that it upsets the whole constitutional practice of the British empire since we have been an empire. What does the motion say? I quote:
That on any day set aside for that purpose by the house without notice having been previously given. . . .
You will observe those words, Mr. Speaker, "without notice." In the parliament of Great Britain notice is given, sometimes a week or

ten days ahead. Yesterday notice was given for a two-day session, grand assize to inquire into the whole war, to be held in the open House of Commons but not in secret session. The resolution goes on to say:
. . . the sitting of the house shall be a secret session.
Matters of the utmost importance will be discussed in that session. Talk about having a judge inquire into Hong Kong and Singapore! I have in my hand here volume 377 of the Parliamentary Debates of Great Britain, 173 pages, dealing with all phases of the war in the Pacific and all other theatres. All these questions are discussed in public with pages of criticism. The same is true of Australia.
My first objection to this motion is that the functions of parliament are being taken away from us with all these secret bodies that have been appointed. In fact, parliament is looked upon by the government as a nuisance-here to-day and gone to-morrow. They have closed the doors upon us. The last clause of the resolution declares that the privilege enjoyed by members of the Senate, of being present at debates in this house, shall not be affected -a sop to the senators. Well, the senate have been here for four hours since last June, without duties to perform. Three sessions ago I asked the government so to arrange matters as to provide more work for the other house of parliament. That other house is composed of men of ability and they should be given more to do.
My main objection to the resolution is that no secret committee or private caucus should decide these questions, because we are simply turning over the whole military work of the nation to a political body. Military problems should be dealt with by the military authorities and the army council. Of course, there are certain state secrets that should not be given away even to this parliament. That holds true in the old land. There are state secrets of such importance to the safety of the realm that they should not be divulged even to members of parliament. My objection, however, is taken on this ground, that this is more or less a political body, and we are supposed to meet in public and not in secret. We should not ask the heads of the services to come into this chamber, with the doors locked, in a sort of star chamber, to answer questions. We are only wasting the time of the heads of the departments. Military strategy is for military experts, not for us.
Under responsible government there are ministers who are answerable to parliament, and they are the ones who should answer

Secret Session of the House
here any questions that are to be asked. We have had only a political administration of the war, as I have mentioned before. As regards the troops in England, we were told at the fall session that it would be the government of Canada who in the last resort would say where they should be dispatched. I have the exact words on record here in Hansard of November 6 and 7 last.
The ordinary member of parliament is in a critical position in this war. There are ministers in the government who have the direction of affairs relating to his majesty's forces, and perhaps they cannot always, for reasons of state, give a direct reply to questions. But I do not like to have criticisms of his majesty's forces. There are three splendid soldiers who are in charge of departments having to do with affairs relating to the military forces, and who served their country well in the last war. Criticism is the function of this house, and it should be made in public. Moreover, the opposition has a duty to perform publicly. We should know the facts. That is what is wrong with our war effort. For five years before the war the people were in the dark; they were not given any facts even in this house. They were given just so much information, so much of the facts, as their rulers wanted them to know.
In a war like this, criticism is necessary, and it is the duty of every member of parliament, if he is sincere and considers the issues well, to do what he can to give constructive criticism. This should not be regarded as being necessarily an attack on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or on any member of the government or on the government itself, because no member of any government is infallible. We all make mistakes, even the greatest leaders. Napoleon and Nelson both made their mistakes, and Great Britain has never had a greater leader than its present Prime Minister, no man comparable as a leader except, perhaps, the great Pitt, and yet he made mistakes in the long war with Napoleon.
The question of tactics is one that should be the responsibility of our military commanders and military council. The trouble is that we have been disregarding this principle; that is the reason for most of the mistakes that have been made in the war by the allies. Mistakes have occurred in consequence of political interference with army, naval and air force commanders. That is so in the Pacific and it was so in Libya, Greece and Singapore. The direction of the war, and all questions of strategy, should rest with the militia council, the purely civilian function of administration being the direct responsibility of a war cabinet. And here let me
say that we should have had a war cabinet long ago and an all allied war council also.
I have already said that in my opinion this motion is not in order. If it passes, the rules of the house will be changed.


Georges Parent: Order. I call attention to the fact that the hon. member is committing a breach of the rule to which I referred this afternoon. He is reading his speech.


Thomas Langton Church: I am referring to the present system and the changes which are being made in our parliamentary practice, and quoting Hansard. I am pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that under our present parliamentary system this motion is not in order, but will be if it passes. There are permanent officials who are able to look into these problems. It should be the duty of the militia council to consider the questions which it is proposed to bring before us. What do I know about military matters? I have never been a military man. and 1 know nothing whatever about military tactics and strategy. I am only a common or garden variety member of parliament. What does the combined membership of this house know about military problems, except for those hon. members who have served overseas? As I say, there are three ministers of the government who have had considerable war experience, and in my opinion we should be very reluctant to take out of their hands and out of the hands of the army council the administration of a war like this. We do not know where it will end.
I do not wish to reflect on our parliamentary system, but even in the old country the Prime Minister there has said that the present political system is not sufficient to cope with all the changes that are taking place. In the old days wars lasted for a few weeks, now they last for years. The enemy is coming pretty close now; we must prepare to meet him at the gate. If we are to change the procedure of parliament, let us do it in a lawful way. I wish to commend you, Mr. Speaker, for the fair way you have presided, because I think not only have you added to the dignity of parliament, but in the last weeks you and your splendid clerk of the house have almost saved parliament itself.
If the government have some new method by which they want to conduct the business of the house, well and good. I contend 'there should be an empire war cabinet, and we should have an allied war cabinet with the United States and the Netherlands in it, so as to have a united effort in this war. The war has now lasted for two and a half years, and what has been done in reference to the houses of parliament? Nothing has been done. In the past two and a half years we
Secret Session of the House

have failed to achieve production sufficient for a total war effort. It is too late to change that system now or the methods which are being used in a parliamentary way. We have staked all the assets of this country on this war to defeat Germany and Japan; we should exert ourselves to get a system and machinery of government which would be more efficient than a proposal to sit in caucus or private session and have questions asked. The enemy I believe are superior in their strategy in these matters.
The method I would propose would be, instead of our meeting in secret, to have an army council and the three ministers meeting with them to decide all these matters of strategy in military affairs. We have made mistakes in the past; I believe they have all made mistakes. The government should not be afraid to tell bhe people of Canada that they have made mistakes, because the people do not expect their leaders and 'governments to be gods. They all make mistakes. But I say if we are to be efficient and achieve our ends in this war, we shall have to be more active. The parliament of Canada too often forgets that we are part of an empire-the British empire. Meeting in secret in this way we forget that we have a duty to the other dominions and the mother country. We should not allow secret meetings to interfere with that duty.
It is contended by some that by having this secret session, members of parliament will be enabled to get some news to reach the public and give members an opportunity to question the government. The effect of the whole thing will, in my opinion, be bad. The other dominions, whose efforts are as great as ours, have been left out of consideration in this motion. In my judgment Canada's parliament should not meet in secret; Canada can afford to state her case and her policy before the court of public opinion of the world. We have a strong case, and the case has been made clear by this parliament. We cannot conduct a grand inquest or assize into this war behind closed doors. I am opposed to the motion.
What about the press? The press of this country has been doing a magnificent work and giving leadership in this war all over Canada. Some journals have raised great war funds, such as the Evening Telegram's British war victims' fund in Toronto; yet the press is being left out in the cold. The press was the main factor in England before the war when all the leaders over there were pacifists and the people listened to the babble of pacifists and tossed away all their defences;

it was the press that opened their eyes and brought them around. They made us realize that the enemy is at our gates.
We have no mandate from the people to upset these constitutional practices by secret meetings in a great war like this. In the last war only one secret meeting was held. The people want to know the facts, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about our war effort. No one wants any military or state secrets revealed; they should not be revealed even at a secret meeting. Some of these secrets should be known only to the king and his military advisers and relate to the defence of the realm.
I shall oppose the motion. The people have not been given sufficient information either before or since the war began. They are totally ignorant of the main problems. On March 21, 1939, on a motion to go into supply I urged the government to give the people the facts, and I quoted what Prime Minister Chamberlain said in England that if the people are not allowed to know the facts concerning the danger at their gates, if they are allowed to know only what their leaders want them to know, that course leads to danger. Within five or six months of that time war was declared, and the people did not know the facts even then.
The motion has connection also with the bureaucrats and boards and1 commissions, numbering, with employees, some 3,500 to
4,000,	who have been appointed and are taking away the functions of this parliament whether we meet in public or in private. They have taken our functions; they have upset the rules and regulations and changed the whole purpose and intent of parliament, with their press agents, radio spokesmen and these other officers that have been appointed. About the only intimations and information given to the public that are not under the control of this magnificent information bureau are the Votes and Proceedings and orders of the day. Everything you read has to be stamped with a badge showing it to be issued under the authority, advice and consent of this wonderful department and its minister, this information bureau and the minister thereof, and even at that the public are not getting much information. Then you have a secret service, unnamed spokesmen on the radio almost every night. I call them the ghosts behind the scenes, dealing with all these matters.
Sometimes the information given by this standing army of officials is only half the truth. All kinds of bureaucratic orders are issued by them, involving fines and gaol

Secret Session of the House
penalties over the head of parliament. Gradually the functions of this parliament are being taken away altogether. A civil war was fought in England for nearly one hundred years over Just this question of the control of the public expenditure and to have their representatives in parliament made responsible to the people. Now the principle fought for in that war has been altogether upset. Are we just to act the part of yes-men and nodders of approval of everything the bureaucratic dollar-a-year men pass? Goodness knows they are passing enough. One czar announces he is going to take the cuffs off the trousers of members of parliament, they are going to abolish ties, they are not going to let the well-groomed Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) wear vests any more, and all that kind of thing, and in the women's column and the society column there are pages of what is to be cut out. Who is paying for it over the head of this parliament and we know nothing about it? This is absolutely illegal, and has been done without the consent of the houses of parliament. We have never heard a word about it, yet penalties and fines up to $5,000 are announced every day by these people, who form what is almost a separate parliament by themselves as czars and dictators. The rules and regulations they pass have the force of statutes, without the knowledge and authority of this parliament, but now we are going to impose more secret government upon the people in the way indicated of a secret session of this house. These boards, commissions and so on are usurping the powers of parliament; they even exercise control over members of the cabinet by the orders they issue secretly. Some of this may be and is necessary to a limited extent. The radio is another secret institution. The Department of External Affairs, as I have contended for some years has been conducted as though its business was its own, without parliament being given all the facts.
That is not the way in which things are done in England. There they publicly debated the whole Pacific question, the collapse of Singapore and everything else. The British Hansard contains sixty-five pages of questions and answers and statements made in the house by responsible ministers. Some of the questions were asked in the house by government supporters, admirals, major-generals, some of the finest soldiers to serve in the last war and many of whom are serving in this war as well. All these matters were discussed in public there; and no questions were asked, and no information given, which would reveal any particular military secrets. We are in 44561-47
the very darkest hour of the war, and this is no time to withold anything from either the public or the press. The real facts and the real picture should be given. As I have said, I believe the press has a great function and duty to perform. It is a connecting link between the government and the electors, as members of parliament are; and the censorship over the press, instead of being further extended, should be abolished altogether. In my opinion the opposition have been led into a trap by supporting this move to meet in secret. In Australia the prime minister, Mr. Curtin, and the leader of the opposition, Mr. Hughes, who was in Canada many times during the last war, have spoken strongly on the whole question of publicity and criticism of our war effort and the danger ahead. They have done splendid work in asserting the rights of Australia as a dominion. Sometimes, when I see what little information we are given compared with the information given in the Australian parliament and when I see the dictators at their doors I think we have let Australia down in not making greater efforts to help her by the Singapore base in 1937-38. The very life of the British commonwealth is at stake, yet we go ahead holding secret meetings, plebiscites, and all that sort of thing.
ft is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that anything that might be accomplished in secret, with reference to the Pacific question, could be better accomplished publicly in this house. We have met intermittently; on again, off again, on again; and one branch is here very seldom. Its members have been sent home, with no war work to do. Instead of having this secret meeting of the house, we should hav e a reallocation of duties as between the two houses of parliament, in connection with the war. It may be too late now to do very much about the Pacific coast. Our belated air bases and the proposed road through British Columbia will get us nowhere without the most important thing of all, supremacy on the sea. Information in this connection should be given the house publicly, not in secret.
I have a great deal of respect for the Prime Minister. I believe he has worked hard, and in many ways I think the government have done a good job, except in regard to manpower. But I believe the government misjudged the whole European situation, as well as the Pacific question. I believe it would be far better for the Prime Minister to make a statement in this house, similar to that made in the British house with regard to the Pacific, Singapore, Hong Kong, and all the other places, and have a two-day debate. This is a story that goes back twenty years.

Secret Session oj the House

Canada, as a part of the British empire, has no divine right to expect victory, or that victory may be attained by secret meetings. The path is going to be more difficult from now on. As I said in this house four years ago, on February 12, 1938, we were shortsighted in not backing the Singapore base as New Zealand and Australia did; and now it is too late. The government seems to think there is a royal road to victory, and as a result we have neglected to prepare for war on land, sea or in the air. Victory will come only with resolute leadership, a total war effort, service and real sacrifice. There is no use in talking about victory, as though it would be ours by divine law; we can gam victory only by telling the people the truth, by facing the real facts and building upon the worst of them.
The time has come when Canada must decide w'hether or not she will do her duty, when the government must speak to the people and let them know the facts. Man-power is the main issue, whether it is discussed in public or in secret. By proposing to hold this secret caucus we are upsetting the practice that has existed for the last two or three hundred years. Up to the present all our meetings have been held in public. I often feel that they have not been adequately reported by the press, but often you cannot blame the press because in many ways parliament has simply effaced itself by allowing its functions, privileges and powers to be taken away and given to these bureaucratic boards, with a resulting lack of information. It seems to me the government is always very glad to see the House of Commons go home, to get rid of it, in order to have a breathing spell and conduct the war itself.
I am afraid of this secret meeting; I am afraid we are falling into a trap. I do not want this motion to pass without a protest, because as soon as the motion passes we create a precedent for the separatists and isolationists of the future, for those only too eager and anxious in the future to initiate the methods of Hitler and Mussolini. I believe I represent a large body of public opinion which is opposed to any such principle. I do not want to see the House of Commons dealt with in this way. So far as I know, there is nothing to meet about in private. The question of the security of the Malay peninsula was dealt with in public in the British house, where they have also discussed Libya, Greece, Crete, Singapore, and all the other places. Only the other day Prime Minister Churchill discussed the very thing about which we are to meet in private; and what did he say to the British house? He said we had to send

to Russia tanks, aeroplanes and other equipment that had been destined for Libya and various other places. Then he went on to say that the fall of Singapore had very gravely affected command of the sea; and, after all, it is Britain's command of the sea that enables Russia to obtain supplies of all kinds from the United Kingdom and the United States. At the present time that command is seriously threatened. That was what he told the British House of Commons in public, and that is the very thing about which we are to meet in secret. Unfortunately Japan has obtained temporary' command of the sea in the Pacific. You can meet in secret all you like; Japan has that command, and that is a terrible thing for the British empire.
For the first time in many years we find Great Britain committed to an important campaign in the Pacific at a time when she has commitments in other places. The United States cannot now get a fleet across the Pacific because she has no bases and Singapore has fallen. This is the kind of information we may get, and it has all been given publicly in the British Hansard and by the British Prime Minister. Great Britain and the United States have not full command of the seas because their lines of communication will be broken by raiders. Japan is even in a position to land forces. This is what is happening while we are sitting here.
This is not the time for us to embark upon this new secret course. The losses sustained yesterday in our own navy amounted to 55 men. We have a duty to the rest of the dominions and the rest of the empire. Nothing should be done to change our constitution because we are entering the darkest hour of the war. Great Britain had to do everything alone up until the end of last June. We now have two active allies. Russia has been a revelation and her military strength has saved Great Britain. Otherwise, the mechanized hordes might be now in Great Britain. We are going to have dark days ahead, and I was hoping that some information would be given to the people. I believe the proposed secret session is a retrograde step.
The press has been eliminated by this motion. The press has been a great factor in giving information to the public of this country, and we owe a great deal to it. Were it not for the press and the money it has spent, the people would not know anything. The establishment of the information bureau was a reflection upon our press. During the last war there was no censorship of the press in effect. Mr. Chambers, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod was the censor. We should

Secret Session of the House
follow the lead of England where there is no censorship. The editors of the papers are directly responsible. This will be the first time in the history of this House of Commons where the press has not been present, except the one meeting which was held in the days of Sir Robert Borden.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all anxious to get more information, but after we do get the information in the secret session which is to be held, how are we going to impart that to our constituents? The people of the country are the ones who really want information. I know that we as members of parliament will be satisfied, but if the information which we hope to get is given to us then, a tremendous responsibility will be thrown upon us. We will be laying ourselves open to criticism or suspicion if any information given in this secret session should get out. It is a detriment to the freedom of parliament. Of course I am willing to take that chance, as are other members. I have made up my mind that I shall see what comes forth in this secret session, but if I do not think sufficient information is being given, I shall not attend further sessions as a result of which I might lay myself open to criticism.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if every Tuesday is to be set aside for a secret session. The wording of the motion is:
That on any day set aside for that purpose by the house without notice having been previously given-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I propose to move a resolution in a moment, fixing Tuesday, February 24, as the day.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Will that be every Tuesday?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not quite understand how you are going to do it.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, before the discussion closes I should like to say a few words because I am very strongly in favour of the holding of a secret session. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) always interests me because he is so typically Conservative. He does not like a change except when it suits his own convenience. As for the argument that this upsets the whole procedure of the British empire for the past several centuries, if we accept this view then perhaps we should regret very much that this same procedure has been upset about once a week during the last year at Westminster itself. We are 44561-471
following good British precedents in holding a session of this description when it is thought necessary.
We want to know something of the government's difficulties. There is information which we cannot get in public because the questions we might ask would give information to the enemy. We are not holding this secret session, as the hon. member for Broadview seems to suggest, in order to badger officials of the Department of National Defence or any other department. I imagine that the only people who will be present at the session will be the responsible ministers, the officials of the house, members of parliament and members of the other place if they care to occupy seats in the gallery. Consequently there will be no opportunity, nor will there be any desire, to pillory anyone in connection with our war effort.
I feel sure that after members of parliament have had the opportunity of asking questions of an intimate nature and receiving replies, they will be in a much better position to decide what questions it is in the public interest to ask the government in the public sessions of parliament. In war time there are matters which we dare not raise on the floor of this house. Several times during the debate on the address some hon. members came very close to asking for information that ought not to have been asked for. On one or two occasions ministers themselves, in placing publicly before the house details regarding equipment and so on, divulged information that might be of interest to the enemy. Of course that was because members of the house sought the information in the only way in which it could be sought.
The object of this secret session, from my own point of view at least, is not to pillory the government, not to indulge in criticism of the government in secret-I shall do that in public-but to gain all the information we possibly can so that we may be able to discuss matters intelligently on the floor of this house.
May I say that I am sorry the government has decided that the inquiry into the Hong Kong affair shall also be held in camera.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government did not decide that. The chief justice made his own decision.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am sorry that the commissioner so decided. I cannot think that any of the facts upon which a judgment could be based in connection with that episode ought to be withheld from the public. It is thoroughly in the public interest that the facts in connection with it should be given.
Secret Session oj the House

So far as the secret session of the house is concerned, let us understand among ourselves that-as in Great Britain and as, I believe, in Australia and New Zealand, where secret sessions have been held-it is not being held in order that members may pillory, criticize or do anything else of the kind to the government, but rather that we may obtain information which because of the war situation could not be given publicly and upon which we may base considered and careful comment afterward.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who during the last twelve months have found it necessary on a score of occasions to withdraw from secret sessions which have been held on matters of great concern and of like nature to the one now under consideration. I realize and recognize the -gravity of the present situation and am anxious that everything that can be done shall be done, and accordingly I shall revise my conduct and sit in at this secret session of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henry Harris: When I say that, Mr. Speaker, may I add, in -reply -to the "hear, hear" which came from the rear, that the basis of my conduct in this matter is a little different from -that which obtained on a previous occasion. The previous occasion to which I refer, sir, had to do with the conduct of the war expenditures committee. There will be a time and place when we can debate that matter, but in the meantime I address myself to this particular question.
One other observation I should like to make, and it is that the report of this session is in very able hands, being in the h-ands of the Speaker. I recognize that we are not now in committee of the whole and- that we -cannot by question and answer get -information -firo-m the Prime Minister as to the wisdom of having you alone, sir, assume that great responsibility. The -thought ran through my -mind that you might wish to have someone, the leaders of the parties perhaps, associated with you in the task of drawing up that report, but on reflection I am of the opinion that it -might -better be left to Mr. Speaker to draft the report of the secret session. All hon. members of goodwill in this house in the one task which is predominant in our minds will, I hope, be satisfied with that report. Nevertheless, in a democratic institution, we must reserve our right -not necessarily to concur in the report which after careful consideration emanates from Your Honour. I felt that I ought -to make a statement of this kind, Mr. Speaker, so -that you would have in mind the feeling 
of some of the members in this very difficult time. I am confident that the report may well lest in y-our hands.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I h-ave on one or two occasions been a member of committees which were supposed to hold their sittings in camera. I quite understand -that there may be a slight d-if-erence -in interpretation as to committees -holding their sittings in camera and committees holding their sittings in secret. But whether it -be in camera or in secret, -the result of information getting out from those commit-tess is just as serious as -the result -of information getting out from a secret session of this house. Yet to my amazement I have discovered that not only has information gone forth from committees that have -been held in camera, but it has actually been printed- in the' press -and blazed before the public. I objected to that on one occasion, and perhaps I shall do so again. Because of that I believe that when a secret session -is held it should be regarded as secret by every member, and not one word should be breathed outside of what has gone on inside the chamber during the secret session.
May I -add that I am a strong believer in the administration of law and1 justice. I d-o not suppose that I shall ever be a judge. I hope I never am, because I am afraid that I would be a little hard upon those who break the law. When people go out deliberately and utter words of a subversive nature they should be punished. Yet, though I say that, I am rather inclined to think that -to put -members of parliament under the defence of Canada regulations because of this secret session- is -perhaps not just the best thing. Personally I find difficulty in thinking my way through the question who is to determine whether or not some utterance made on a public platform was made on the basis of what the speaker might have heard at a secret session of this house.
I would also ask the Prime Minister whether a Hansard report will be kept of the secret session. If such a report is kept I do not see that it could be a secret session. If it is not kept, who is to know whether this or that member has revealed something secret after the session is over? I am wondering whether a better method of dealing with any such betrayal of information would not be to bring the member before the bar of this house. I offer that as a suggestion.
One further question. During the secret session are we to understand that the house will go into committee of the whole in order that questions may be asked? I am one of those who have in the past advocated a secret session every once in a while. I agree with the hon. member who leads our friends of

Secret Session of the House
the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation; I have no desire whatsoever to badger the government or put forth any political arguments or put the government on the spot in any particular, but there are some things which I believe the members of the House of Commons should know in order to be able better to serve this country. That is my attitude. At present we are in the dark on many matters of public concern. I have had people ask me things about which they have obtained information somewhere but about which I have not known a thing; I am in the dark about them, and I am certain that all members feel as I do in that respect. I think the secret session will serve a good purpose if the government will be absolutely open and free to say, "Gentlemen, this is the situation; there it is; now, what can we do to benefit that particular thing?" If the government will be absolutely open and frank I am sure that it will receive the cooperation, and not the opposition, of members of this house in a secret session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word in reference to some of the remarks that have been made.
First of all, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) drew attention to the wording of the resolution itself. I agree with him that it is a little ambiguous. The explanation is that at the time the resolution was placed on the order paper it was impossible to say what day could be fixed for the secret session; I knew that hon. members desired to be assured that a secret session would be held very soon. I accordingly had the notice placed on the order paper to provide for an early date. In order to remove ambiguity and to place the matter in a shape which I think would be preferable, I would ask the house to allow me to amend the resolution before it is put to the house by Mr. Speaker so that it may read:
That on Tuesday, the twenty-fourth instant, the sitting of the house shall be a secret session until the house . . .
Et cetera. That removes any ambiguity about secret sessions being held from week to week, or anything of the kind, and is, I think, preferable in every way.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: That is what I thought it would be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; my hon. friend says he thought it would be that. The intention of the government was simply to make the resolution broad enough to fix a day, but it was not intended that there should be a series of secret sittings of the house.


Mr. SENN:: Will the sitting be confined to one day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope it will not occupy an entire day, but I cannot say how long it will last. We will see what time is necessary when the sitting actually takes place.
May I say this with respect to the secret session, particularly in view of what has been said this afternoon? At the previous session a request was made for a secret session of the house. The government has not met that request up to the present time. We thought it was inadvisable for many reasons to have secret sessions if they could possibly be avoided. But when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. ColdWell) asked at the beginning of this session if a day could be fixed for a secret session, I felt, and my colleagues agreed with me, that to refuse that request would cause the government to appear to be unwilling to give information to hon. members which they ought to have and which they could not obtain in any other way. We agreed to the secret session in order that we might not be misunderstood with respect to our wish not to withhold anything that hon. members desired to have in the way of information and which we of the government were in a position to give.
But may I say to hon. members that there is great force in much that has been said this afternoon by some hon. members who have evidently been giving this matter a great deal of thought. If the session related to a matter which concerned Canada only and to giving information which would concern Canada alone, I should feel that the responsibility upon the ministry was much less than it is in the light of a situation such as exists in the world to-day. Canada's w7ar effort is bound up with the war efforts of all parts of the British empire. It is also linked now not only with the war effort of the United States but also with those of the united nations, some twenty-six in number; and our plans, as I think is generally known, are related to the combined plans, in so far as they have thus far been combined, of all the nations which are allied with us in the war. It is going to be exceedingly difficult for the government to disclose much information with respect to questions which will arise in the minds of many. hon. members, without giving information which, if it were ever publicly disclosed, would react, not against the government of Canada, but against the war effort of the combined nations; and I want to make it perfectly clear that when the secret session
Secret Session of the House

is held the government will have to keep constantly in mind that great and very grave responsibility.
I do not mind saying that time and again we have received communications from England regretting that we had found it necessary to make certain statements in this parliament with respect to some phases of our war effort, particularly in answering questions as to the extent, of equipment and production in- certain directions, and the like. These things may not appear to us to have the significance which others attach to them. But in relation to a war effort so closely knit as this is, between many nations, and directed against a foe who stops at nothing to obtain information on eveiy single point about which it is possible to acquire information, the responsibility of giving any information other than that which can be communicated in open parliament is very grave indeed.
Now, I have confidence in the honour and integrity of all hon. members; but when I acknowledge that personally I repeatedly find it very difficult, while in conversation with different persons, quite unconsciously not to tell something which is in the nature of a state secret, I can imagine how difficult it is going to be for many hon. members who, perhaps, have not to reserve their words with the same caution that I have to apply to my own, to avoid, in the course of conversations with friends or on occasions when some particular point is raised, not to unwittingly give out information which has been obtained at a secret session, never thinking it to be of the significance which in fact it may have. I had thought that when the session was being held I might say a word of caution in this connection, but perhaps it is as well that it should be said now. What I wish, however, to make clear, and I would like the country to understand it, is that the government is not asking the house to meet in secret session in order that it may disclose something which it regards as critical or as otherwise necessitating a secret session. It is seeking, rather, to meet the wish of some hon. members to get information which otherwise they might not be in a position to secure.
My understanding with regard to the secret sessions held in Britain-and I have taken occasion to make careful inquiries-is that such sessions are usually held at the instance of the government itself, where the Prime Minister has some statement which he thinks it is desirable to impart to the members but which he would not wish to impart openly. Secret sessions are for that purpose rather than for the purpose of giving an amount of detailed information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the Prime Minister allow me? I am surprised to hear him make that statement, because my understanding was entirely the reverse-that it is very rarely the government asked to have a secret session for the purpose of making statements, but that it usually came from the demands of private members.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had not finished what 1 was going on to say. My information as I have given it to the house is exactly as I have received it in a communication which I shall be glad to show my hon. friend later, but the communication goes on to state that in the secret session opportunity is afforded members of the opposition, or members of parliament generally, to make to the government suggestions and criticisms which they would hesitate to make in open session. The one point I wish to stress is that facts in regard to such matters as equipment, disposition of troops, questions of strategy, and the like, which might assist the enemy, are not disclosed at all at secret sessions in Britain; those sessions are as limited, in the matter of disclosure of detailed information, as it is possible for sessions to be, and usually, as hon. members know, the sessions themselves are few and far between and do not last for any length of time.
As regards the question which an hon. member has raised as to the use of Hansard, of course no record of any kind will be kept. The purpose of the session is that discussions may be off the record and that nothing shall go out, nothing shall be retained of the record, with respect to questions that have been raised or answers given.
As to procedure, whether the house will proceed in committee of the whole, I understand that in Britain the Speaker is usually in the chair when the minister concerned or the Prime Minister is making his statement. The house then resolves itself into committee of the whole so as to permit of question and answer on the statement which has been made. That may be found to be the most convenient way to proceed when we meet on Tuesday, but that the house can decide for itself when in secret session. That is all I wish to say, but I should like to have the motion put in the form amended as indicated.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A question arose, from the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blaekmore), about the record.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I answered
that. There is none to be kept.


Mr. McIVOR:: One question. When two
know a thing it is a secret, and when three

Censorship of Members' Mail
know it it is not. Is any penalty attached to anyone who is known to be giving out news, apart from yourself, Mr. Speaker?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have mentioned the order in council that provides penalties for a disclosure on the part of anyone with respect to what takes place at a secret session.
Motion as amended agreed to. PRIVILEGE-HON. MR. HANSON



CENSORSHIP OF MAIL ADDRESSED TO OR DISPATCHED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon, R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition): I desire to refer at this stage to the question of privilege which I raised on Monday last regarding the censorship of mail addressed to or dispatched by members of parliament. I had anticipated that an additional reply would be forthcoming either from the Prime Minister of from the Postmaster General before this. It will be recalled that I requested that the rules and regulations governing this practice be laid before the house, and the Prime Minister promised to endeavour to secure information. I now wish to renew that request and to seek from the Prime Minister or the Postmaster General an unequivocal assurance that the practice of which I complained will be abandoned.
Since I spoke on Monday last I have been doing a little investigating myself and I find that every telegram that I send, or any other member sends, is censored, whether it is within or without the country. I find also that so far, in Ottawa, our long distance telephone messages have not been tapped but that telephone messages from certain defence areas are tapped and recordings made of them.
I do not want to use too strong language about this. I can quite appreciate that telephone messages from a defence area, and telegrams from a defence area-perhaps letters from a defence area, if that is the right technical term to use-addressed to certain people, especially outside Canada, may and in certain instances should be censored. But a telephone message to me from Halifax surely ought not to be censored. A telegram from myself to somebody in Winnipeg ought not to be copied and censored.
This thing has gone beyond all reason. I do not think hon. members are aware how far it has gone.
Mr. REID:: In British Columbia they warn you before you telephone outside the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The only warning I ever had over the telephone was not to talk about the weather. I talked to my daughter in Halifax.


Mr. RALSTON:: And other things too- ships and so on. .


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are not to talk about that, or things of that sort. That is quite all right. But we have reached the stage where any telegram I send to any of my political friends is copied, and the contents may 'be submitted to some minister across the way. Surely this sort of thing cannot go on. I am not disloyal; I am not dealing in treason. I may be at times engaged in political warfare, but I am certainly not dealing in treason. Nobody will for a moment think I am. If I were, I would be unworthy to occupy not only this position but a seat in this house.
I do appeal to the Prime Minister to have some review made of this whole position. I sent for an official of the company the other day and he was good enough to come and see me. I had been warned that my conversations were being tapped-I think that is the word-and I know from investigations I have made in New Brunswick that it is quite possible to do that. Anybody can listen in. In operating the telephone they can listen in and they do listen in. I made it my business as director of the New Brunswick Telephone company to inquire once pretty thoroughly into the question, because complaint had been made to me, and the party making the complaint had just cause for doing so. I found out what the modus operandi was. I did not think it was right, and that was in peace time. I certainly raised cain so far as I was able to in connection with it.


Mr. POWER:: Who does the tapping, the telephone company or some employee of the government?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I found out that, so far as anything transmitted out of this building is concerned, there is no tapping. I was therefore reassured and I was very much relieved. The minute you take down your telephone you are automatically put in touch with central in Ottawa and there is no intervention. I am assured that there is no opportunity for intervention in this building. That of course is a relief. At the other end of the wire there may be opportunity for intervention.


Charles Gavan Power: By the telephone company?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It must be with the cooperation of the telephone com-
Censorship oj Members' Mail

party. Out of Halifax, there is no doubt about it that the officers were sitting right in. We have had the spectacle of a prosecution of one of the leading citizens of Halifax on the basis of a telephone conversation. I do not know much about the merits of that case, but this gentleman was prosecuted and he was found not guilty. The government has appealed that decision. There may be sound grounds for that; I do not know, but I am informed that that was a case which should never have been brought up. Of course opinions may differ about that. Counsel may have been asked to give an opinion, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may have felt strongly, or it may even have come up to the government itself. I do not know. However, the situation exists. That is what I am referring to and I think we should know something more about it.
On the point of censoring letters to or from members of parliament let us have an end of that. On the question of telegrams, it is well to be forewarned. I suppose we shall have to get a secret code. I do not want every member of the government to know what I am sending out to Mr. Meighen, we will say. I just mention that in passing. It would be terrible if we were to have this espionage go the extent of including long distance telephone messages. Liberty in this country will be gone. Surely we are confined enough now; we are regimented enough. I am willing to take my share with anyone in that regard on my personal prerogatives and freedom of action. But this is spying; this is espionage, and I object to it. I want it to end if I can possibly have it ended.
I renew my request with added force to-day for the production of the regulations in regard to this matter so that we may know under just what system we are living.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon.
friend that when he brought this subject up the other day I immediately spoke to one of my colleagues in reference to having the whole situation carefully reviewed. It was pointed out at the time that it concerned different departments of the government, and in order to have a complete review I have waited until inquiry could be made- sufficiently comprehensive to give my hon. friend a reply. I will try to see that the review is expedited and an answer given to him in a day or two. But I would say to my hon. friend that I do think he is unduly concerned about the extent to which others are interested in his mail or his conversations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would hope nobody is. But apparently they are.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mean so far as the government is concerned. The last thing I should wish, and I am sure any of my colleagues or any members on this side of the house, would be to have the slightest knowledge of any matter which my' hon. friend regarded as confidential.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a fair statement, of course.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would say first that as far as the safety of the state will permit all his confidential correspondence should be kept so. I agree that every precaution must be taken to preserve the absolute right of every citizen to have his mail kept free from censorship as far as possible, but there are certain military obligations that have to be observed at this time. I suppose that by degrees we shall overcome the difficulties that arise in that connection. I would say, however, that spying or espionage is not a part of what the government is seeking in this connection.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to support the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) in this matter, and I should like the Prime Minister to make a much more definite statement than that he will give the leader of the opposition a copy of the regulations or even make further inquiry and give further consideration to the matter. Under the circumstances I do not think that is good enough.
I can see a reason why letters, telegrams and so on from certain defence areas should be censored, but I cannot see why letters addressed to members of parliament should be censored even when they come from those particular areas. We are here representing the Canadian people. If there are those among us who are suspect, they should be dealt with in another way. May I add that I do not think there is any such member in the house. But for my own part, for example, a soldier who has written to me on matters concerning himself would hesitate to write to me at all if he knew that the letter was going to be opened and a paragraph from it forwarded say to the Minister of National Defence, who in turn might forward it to the soldier's commanding officer, and the man would then undoubtedly receive some penalty or reprimand for having written to a member of parliament. We are fighting for democratic rights, and surely one of the democratic rights a citizen possesses, whether he is in

Censorship oj Members' Mail
uniform or out of uniform, is the right to approach his elected representative in this house without let or hindrance.
I strongly support the leader of the opposition in the protest he has made. I regret that the Prime Minister has not given a more categorical assurance that this interference *with mail, at least mail addressed to members of the House of Commons, will cease immediately. The situation is much too serious to be allowed to rest simply with a promise of consideration. In saying what he did I am sure the leader of the opposition, as I did, was speaking not merely on behalf of opposition members of this house; I have heard expressions of opinion from members on the government side which coincide very closely with the opinions we are expressing. Let us not in this struggle for liberty and democracy allow these elementary rights of citizenship and parliamentary representation to be taken from us or interfered with.
I strongly urge upon the Prime Minister that he give a categorical assurance to this house that at least so far as members of this house are concerned this interference with the right of the citizen to approach his member unhampered, unhindered and unsupervised will cease immediately.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think my hon. friend can have quite caught the purport of my reply to the leader of the opposition. I did not say the matter was receiving consideration; I replied that I intended to make a full statement when the review which is now being made of the situation is completed. May I add that I did express to the Postmaster General the personal view that I thought all letters addressed to members of parliament should go without censorship altogether and that I should like him to have that aspect of the situation inquired into particularly and let me know if there is any reason why that rule should not prevail.
My hon. friend spoke of the tapping of telephones. I do not mean to pose as an authority, but some years ago I, along with another gentleman, was appointed a commissioner to inquire into certain conditions of employment obtaining among telephone operatives. The commission learned at that time that one aspect of telephone operations as conducted by the company itself was to have as part of a regular procedure what was known as a listening board, at which operators sat and took down parts of conversations. It was considered part of the regular business of the telephone company.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think that is true to-day.
44561 - 4*


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me finish, because it may serve my hon. friend's purpose as well as my own. I have kept it in mind ever since. The explanation which was given was that the company was interested in knowing whether telephones were being used for private purposes or for purposes of business, there being a higher rate charged on telephones used for business purposes than on those for domestic use. Upon the report made by the commission this parliament subsequently passed an enactment making it an offence to disclose any information obtained over a telephone in that way. Parliament did not do away with the listening boards. I do not know whether they are still used, but I know that at that time it came as a surprise to everyone

this was some thirty or more years ago-to discover that while there was such a law with respect to disclosing contents of telegrams, it did not apply to disclosure of telephone conversations. It may be that conversations over the telephone are listened to still, but I would certainly not countenance the government listening in on telephone conversations unless for very exceptional reasons.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The fact is they do. Recordings are made of conversations in Canada to-day in certain areas. I am not unreasonable about that. There may be sound reasons for it, because this country is full of spies. I have no doubt of it. And they are not hiding up in this gallery listening to the twaddle that goes on in this house. They are down where there is business going on that might interest their nation. I agree with that. But so far as we are concerned here why should there be any attempt to censor our telegrams or our telephone conversations?



WAR APPROPRIATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance when it is expected that the war appropriation bill for the next fiscal year will be introduced. Will there be a supplementary war appropriation bill for the present fiscal year, and if so when will it be brought down?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY:: (Minister of Finance): Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not completed my plans with respect to the introduction of these bills. What I have in mind is the introduction of a bill relating to the financial arrangements

War Insurance

with Great Britain, as the first of the financial bills; then, probably shortly after that, the introduction of both the supplementary appropriation bills for the present fiscal year and the war appropriation bill for the next fiscal year, bringing them in at the same time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There will be a supplementary bill as well?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would appear that a supplementary appropriation bill will be necessary.



HONG KONG COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. FULFORD (Leeds):: Is it true that Colonel George Drew has been appointed by the opposition as counsel to the royal commission investigating the Hong Kong affair; and, if so, could that be the real reason the Ontario legislature has been adjourned?


George Taylor Fulford: When may I expect an answer to my question?


Georges Parent: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) is not bound to reply.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, when it is anticipated that the annual report of the Canadian National Railways and the report of the auditors of the Canadian National Railways will be laid on the table? I should think we ought to have this information before Bill No. 9, respecting the appointment of auditors, is proceeded with. It will be recalled that last year these reports were delayed and it was not until late in the session that they were received and the committee set up. I can understand that with the present tremendous volume of work there may be some delay on the part of the Canadian National in getting out these reports, but perhaps this would be timely notice to the minister, if we could have the reports later. My suggestion is that this bill be not proceeded with in the meantime.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall draw the attention of the minister to my hon. friend's remarks.



WAR INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to direct a question ito the Minister of Finance. Would the government advise us as to whether they have in view making available to the general list of airmen, pilots and officers on active service, officers and other ranks of the active army in hazardous jobs, the personnel of the naval services and the merchant marine, some sort of contributory scheme of life insurance, such as that in force in the United States? Would it be possible for the government to make available to the insurance companies of Canada the statistics with respect to the mortality in these services, from time to time, so that the life insurance companies would be able 'to set rates which would be available to the members of the forces? At the present -time no such statistics are available, and the making of rates is more or less of a gamble.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's); Would the government advise the house and the country as to what war risk property damage insurance is available -to the public in suoh places as Halifax and Vancouver, and other vulnerable points? Some months ago I inquired by letter of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, under whose jurisdiction I understood this came, as to what had been done in this matter. I was advised


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: -that the whole question was being considered. It seems to me that we should follow 'the example of Great Britain and act in this matter without delay.


Georges Parent: Order. The hon. gentleman should ask his question without making a speech.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to just finish my question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to say further that in certain circumstances it is delaying our war effort. Shippers who in all probability have bank commitments are diffident about shipping their goods-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let the Speaker call the hon. gentleman to order.

Defence of Canada Regulations


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: That is not a. question at all for the orders of the day. It is definitely out of order.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: It is not a question; it is a statement.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I think this is a question that should be answered at once.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs (Mr. Macdonald) has no right to lecture either the hon. member or myself across the floor of this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I raised a point of order, and I had every right to raise it.


Georges Parent: The hon. gentleman should have asked his question. He proceeded to make a statement. He should address his question -to the government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As to the first two questions, I submit 'that they should be placed on the order paper, because they are not the sort of question which [DOT]the rules permit on the order's of the day. As to the third question, there may be a slightly greater element of urgency in that, because it relates to war risk insurance. I can say to my hon. friend -that some time ago I instructed -an eminent member of the legal profession in whom I have confidence to make a report to me on the type of war risk insurance scheme that rvould be appropiate to this country. He has not yet done so, though I understand that he is just about ready to do it. When that report is received the government will take such action -as is appropriate in the circumstances.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It is three -months since I first inquired. This matter should be dealt with.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to direct one more question, this time to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who is not here. Perhaps it might be addressed instead to our new friend the Minister of Justice, who has just come to us. My attention has been called to order in council P.C. 995, passed on the 9th instant under the authority of the War Measures Act, on the recommendation of the acting Minister of Justice. This order in council amends the defence of Canada regulations, as consolidated in 1941, by rescinding the present regulation
No. 48 and substituting a new regulation No. 48, whereby the Minister of Munitions and Supply is given power-a power heretofore reserved to the ministers of defence, air and navy-to requisition, among other things (a) any chattel in Canada; and (b) any British ship or aircraft registered in Canada.
If it is not convenient for the ministry to answer my questions to-day it will be all right to have them answered later. But I should like to ask, first, the reason for this amendment to the regulations. Why is this power now sought to be vested in the Minister of Munitions and Supply rather than in the defence ministry, and what is the reason for this extension of the power of requisition- because I think in substance there is an extension of that power. Then I wish to know if the owner of such chattel, ship or aircraft, as the case may be, is to be compensated therefor, or is it to be conscripted, if that is a proper word to use in this house? And will members of parliament be provided with copies of the order in council? I think everyone ought to know about this; that is why I am drawing attention to it.
These are wide powers which are given to the ministers, I have no doubt quite properly. I am not criticizing the policy at all, but I want to get before the public the fact that there already exist very wide powers, and that now the Minister of Munitions and Supply, in addition to the defence ministers, can come in and take anything I have. They are welcome, as far as I am concerned, but the public ought to know about it and the reasons for the extension of that power to the fourth minister.
Hon. L. S. St. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, this order in council was published in the Canada Gazette of February 14, 1942.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many people read it?


Mr.   S@: If it is desired, copies can be made available for the information of hon. members. As to the other information requested, might that stand over until the beginning of the week, so that an appropriate answer may be prepared?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely.


[Stage Direction]
TRANSFER OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS-* UNEMPLOYED EMPLOYABLES
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice of a question or rather a series of questions that I intended to
Unemployment Insurance

ask to-day of the Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). My questions arise out of a picture which appeared some days ago in the Winnipeg Tribune depicting the delivery of an unemployment insurance cheque to a young man, twenty years of age, unmarried and living at home. Since unemployment insurance is denied to those who can secure employment or who have been given an opportunity for employment, I should like to ask the minister the following questions.
Why was this young man, who is apparently able-bodied and intelligent, not transferred to some work or occupation suitable to him where his services might be utilized instead of paying out unemployment insurance to him? And arising out of that question: Have the national employment or regional committees transferred unemployed men to such positions as are vacant and available within or without the province where such persons were living at the time they became unemployed? If so, how many persons who would otherwise be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits have been transferred in that manner? Finally, how many unemployed employables are there in Canada to-day?


Georges Parent: The questions asked by the hon. member really should not be asked on the orders of the day.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Acting Minister of Labour):: I have no objection to answering the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) with such information as I have. The case to which he refers has perhaps received some publicity because it was the first cheque paid out for benefits under the unemployment insurance fund. The young man in question was an usher in a theatre, and the employment service has been and is still endeavouring to secure him work. Not being a robust young man, he could not join the forces and cannot take on heavy work. In other words, he is pretty much limited to the class of work he was doing or work of a clerical nature.
With reference to the second question about the transfer of unemployed workers, I am advised that the employment offices are endeavouring to secure employment for any unemployed by every possible means, by transfer if necessary, provided they are willing to be transferred.
I am sorry that I have not had sufficient time to get the figures as to the unemployed employables, but I shall be glad to furnish my hon. friend with that information.
[Mr. Di. fenbaker.l



PLEBISCITE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the taking of the votes of the qualified voters on any question submitted by way of plebiscite and for such purposes to make provision for the printing and publication of a Plebiscite Act and instructions issued thereunder, the preparation of voters' lists and other plebiscite documents, including forms and ballot papers, to provide for the fees, allowances, expenses or other remuneration of certain officials and employees.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Do I understand that t'he minister does not intend to make a statement?


Norman Alexander McLarty: My intention was to make a statement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now is the time to make it, before Mr. Speaker leaves the chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It could be made in committee of the whole.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister ought to make a statement now because there are certain members who want to speak on this resolution.


Norman Alexander McLarty: There is no objection to following that procedure. I thought possibly the statement could have been made in committee of the whole, but it does not make any difference, certainly as far as I am concerned. In rising to move this resolution standing in my name, I realize that in some respects it is unique. A resolution of this kind is usually moved to accord the house and the committee an opportunity of considering the legislation which will be based upon it and of dealing with the matter in a general and not a detailed way. In the case of this resolution, however, the situation is somewhat changed. Ever since the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne commenced, most, if not all, of the attention of the house has been directed to the particular subject matter of the resolution which I am now moving. There were other important matters mentioned in the speech from the throne, but they were more or less neglected, or at least not extensively referred to. For that reason, I feel that I can best occupy the time of this house if I do not traverse the ordinary course which would ordinarily be traversed with a resolution of this kind, but deal with the particular

Plebiscite Act-Mr. McLarty
features of the enactment which it is proposed to have follow the passing of this resolution.
Now that the holding of the plebiscite has been decided upon, I believe it will be the wish of this house that it be proceeded with in the fairest manner possible, in the speediest manner possible and in the most inexpensive manner possible. That being the situation, 1 think I can best use the time of the house in dealing with certain particular features of the enactment.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the remarks which you made earlier in the day about hon. members not reading statements, that in the statement which I propose to give this afternoon there is nothing argumentative; I trust it is largely expository and explanatory. If I refer to my notes somewhat extensively, it will be only for the purpose of contracting the time that otherwise it would be necessary to take to deal with this resolution and perhaps of not overlooking some of the more important features. I shall endeavour, however, to trespass upon your injunction to the smallest possible degree.
This will not be the first plebiscite bill to be enacted in Canada. Hon. members are aware that the prohibition plebiscite act was passed by the parliament of Canada in 1898. One of the outstanding features of that act- it was not a lengthy one-was that it did not reenact any election act; it enacted the specific legislative features that were necessary to found the legislation upon and then left to directions the creation of the appropriate machinery and the procedure that would be followed. In the ease of this enactment, it is suggested that a similar course be followed, that we do not try to reenact the whole election act, as we did in 1938, but that we enact essential legislative features, leaving to regulations, which regulations will be modeled as closely as possible upon the provisions of the election act, to provide the machinery which will be necessary to give force and effect to the plebiscite bill.
There will be another difference between the present bill and the act enacted in 1898. It is not proposed to put in this measure the exact wording of the plebiscite or the date upon which the plebiscite will be held. The wording has already been given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and that wording, together with the date, will be incorporated in a proclamation, provision for which is made in the bill itself.
It is proposed also that after the bill has received its second reading, it will be submitted to a special committee of the house for consideration. To that committee
will be submitted, not only the bill itself but the regulations and the forms which will be promulgated after the passage of the bill.
This course appears to have a number of advantages. In the first place, the regulations must necessarily be lengthy. They will consist of two major divisions-those dealing with the Canadian service voters and those dealing with the ordinary voters in Canada. When combined, these regulations will comprise something like one hundred and thirty sections, and, when printed, cover about one hundred and twenty-five pages; and it is thought, bearing in mind the opportunity possessed by a special committee of receiving submissions and taking evidence, that they would receive a more thorough and, as well, a more expeditious consideration if, in the first instance, they were discussed1 in the special committee rather than in committee of the whole house.
As a safeguard, the bill will provide that the regulations shall, as near as may be, conform to the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and, in the matter of taking the vote of Canadian service voters, to the method employed at the last general election.
The bill consequently, Mr. Speaker, will not be a lengthy one. It will have but ten sections. Of these, several are of a nature which will require very little discussion, and for that reason I shall not deal with them at this time.
Perhaps the most important sections of the bill are those which provide for qualifications and disqualifications of voters. But before dealing in a general way with those sections, might I make one or two preliminary observations on the general principles which have been considered in the framing of the bill.
In the first place, it is the desire of the government and will, I believe, be the desire of parliament that the fullest possible opportunity shall be accorded to the people of Canada to express their views upon the particular question which will be submitted. On the other hand, it is equally desired that this expression will not be stifled by any undue restriction on those who will be permitted to vote.
In the second place, it is recognized that while the pledge was given to the qualified voters of Canada, there are certain classes of voters who, because of war-time conditions, must necessarily be excluded from voting, and others who, on account of their religious beliefs, would not in any event be affected by the giving of the pledge. Bearing in mind these observations, there are two classes
Plebiscite Act-Mr. McLarty

of voters for whom the bill provides: (1) the Canadian service voter; and (2) the ordinary voter.
(1)	The' definition of a Canadian service voter is an extremely wide one and is made as ample and complete as could be devised. This provision in the act has only two restrictions, namely, that he or she be a British subject and at the time he or she became a member of such forces or corps, was ordinarily resident in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there any age limit?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I was just coming to that.
Service may be performed within Canada or any other part of the world, but their right to vote is definitely ensured. Whether they are or are not over twenty-one years of age is not a restriction.
(2)	But in the ease of the ordinary voter, different considerations apply and the explanation cannot be as brief.
The general qualifications applying to electors under the election act apply in the plebiscite. Any voter must be a British subject, must be twenty-one years of age at the date of polling, must have been ordinarily a resident of Canada for twelve months prior to the polling date and ordinarily resident in the polling division on the twenty-eighth day before polling day.
There are necessarily some disqualifications, and with these I should now like to deal.
(a)	In the first place, I would point out that those who are disqualified from voting under the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, will be disqualified from voting at the plebiscite.
(b)	In addition, every interned person will be disqualified.
(c)	In addition, too, every person resident in Canada whose racial origin is that of a country at war with Canada, if such person would be disqualified by reason of race in any one of the provinces of Canada while residing therein from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of that province, and who did not serve in the naval, military or air forces of Canada in the great war, as defined in the Pension Act, or in the war declared by his majesty on the tenth day of September, 1939, against the German reich and subsequently other powers.
The purpose of this section can be best illustrated by a concrete example. Suppose a citizen of Japanese origin were permitted to vote, the fact that he was permitted to do so would be resented. It would quite possibly result in some measure of public disorder.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that an extension of the present principle, or is it the same principle?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is the same to this extent. The present principle, under section 14(2) of the Dominion Elections Act excludes from voting in a dominion election any person who is excluded from voting in any province. This is an exception to this extent, that if they are excluded in any particular province and are of enemy origin, they are excluded from voting on the plebiscite. By a country of enemy origin I mean if they originate from a country with which Canada is at war. The only limitation is to the extent to which any particular race may be excluded 'by provincial legislation.


Mr. STIRLING:: Does that apply only to that province or to all Canada?


Norman Alexander McLarty: If a person is excluded from voting in any one province and the person comes from a country with which we are at war, that person is excluded throughout Canada generally.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is clear enough.


Mr. MacINNIS:: That applies to only one particular race, but we are at war with a number of different countries.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps we might better deal with these questions in committee. Careful consideration would have to be given before a reply was made to the question of the hon. member.


Angus MacInnis: I did not ask a question. I followed the precedents given me by other members of the house, and I do not think certain members of the house have privileges over those accorded to other members.


Georges Parent: We are not in committee on the resolution now, and questions can be permitted only with the consent of the minister.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have now dealt with the exclusions from voting on the plebiscite under the terms of the proposed bill. I do not apprehend, Mr. Speaker, that criticism will be directed to or exception taken of those who have been excluded from the vote. I rather surmise that any criticism which may develop will be that certain classes have not been excluded.
Canada is a country which, while not as great in population as many other countries in the world, is composed of many nationalities and of many creeds. Until the beginning of the present century the population of this

Plebiscite Act-Mr. McLarty
country was largely of British and French stock. But at the turn of the century, Sir Wilfrid Laurier announced* that the twentieth century belonged to Canada and that we had a vast and largely undeveloped area which, if populated, would result in this country becoming the granary of the empire. A broad, liberal and expansive immigration policy was instituted and, as a result, a great many immigrants came to Canada from European countries and from the United States. They brought their families with them and intended to make this country their permanent home. In due course a vast majority of them became Canadian citizens under the terms of the Naturalization Act. They took the naturalization oath, which is as follows:
I, . . . , swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George the Sixth, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
What does naturalization involve? It involves this: I quote the terms of the Naturalization Act:
A person to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted by the minister shall, subject to the provisions of this act, be entitled to all political and other rights, powers and privileges, be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities, to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject, and as from the date of his naturalization have to all intents and purposes the status of a natural-born British subject.
I am fully aware, Mr. Speaker, that the judicial committee of the privy council has dealt with this particular section of the act. It has decided that the right to exercise the franchise is not inherent in those who enjoy by virtue of this naturalization the "political and other rights". I might also point out that those citizens who enjoy these rights are subject to "all obligations, duties and liabilities" which are conditions precedent to their enjoyment.
It is not the intention of the government to take away lightly either the privileges or the responsibilities which arise from citizenship. Neither is being done under this legislation which is now proposed. The right to do so would require to be clear and imperative; and the fairness in doing so would require to be immediately apparent.
This is not, however, a general election. Such an election would necessarily involve a number of considerations, and-important as any one might be-the overriding consideration would be the particular government which would exercise power in Canada, at least until a subsequent government was elected to give direction and maintain control.
In this plebiscite the electors of Canada are asked to answer one question and one alone:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
The question is one which seeks relief from commitments. But the one especial commitment referred to is the matter of military service.
May I go one further step? While no further disfranchisement is envisaged, it is provided that anyone who holds the views of conscientious objection to military service and who votes on the plebiscite, shall, after so voting, be disqualified from applying for postponement of military service under sections 18 and 19 of the national war services regulations.
I should now like, Mr. Speaker, to deal with some of the more mechanical phases of the bill.
In the first place, there is the preparation of voters' lists. A great deal of consideration has been given to the most appropriate method of compiling the voters' lists to be used in the plebiscite.
It was first suggested that the lists prepared and printed in connection with the last general election might be sufficient for the purpose. But the objections to this course, bearing in mind the events of the last two years, seemed to make this extremely undesirable.
In the first place, in the larger cities and towns many changes of residence occur every year, but more changes than usual have occurred in the last two years. In the second place, a great many have changed their residence by reason of their enlistment in the military forces of Canada. In the third place, it is estimated that in the neighbourhood of 400,000 young Canadians have attained voting age since the last general election. Their names, of course, would not appear on such voters' lists.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Four
hundred thousand?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is the figure which has been given to me. That would of course, include both sexes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is larger than I got from the bureau.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Well, those are the figures which were supplied to me by the chief electoral officer, and I understood he obtained them from the bureau of statistics.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well,
there may be some explanation.


Norman Alexander McLarty: In the fourth place, there are many places now in Canada where large
Plebiscite Act-Mr. McLarty

industrial plants have been established since 1940 in districts which at that time were sparsely settled but which now have popu-[DOT] lations running into thousands, and where the 1940 lists would prove of no value whatever.
Another suggestion received was to the effect that no lists of any kind be used but that every voter take an oath in the polling station before being allowed to vote.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to know who made that.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Speaker, I personally received a number of such suggestions. I cannot recall at the present moment from whom they came.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps
that is an embarrassing question.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Not at all.


Angus MacInnis: Is the resolution now open to questions, or do we have to wait until we go into committee?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The house is not in committee, and the minister has the floor. Unless he consents to any questions being put, as he has the floor, questions are not in order.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If it were a situation
where questions could not be asked later on, I would have not the slightest hesitation in replying to them now. I should like, however, if possible to complete my remarks on the resolution by six o'clock to-night. I think I can do so without any difficulty; and while I have no objection to answering questions, perhaps, with the opportunity which will be accorded later on, it would be better to postpone them.


Angus MacInnis: If they are awkward questions!


Thomas Vien: Order. It is the privilege of the minister to make his statement uninterrupted.


Norman Alexander McLarty: As I have said, another
suggestion received was to the effect that no lists of any kind be used but that every voter take an oath in the polling station before being allowed to vote. It was felt that there were two serious objections to this course.
In the first place, it was believed that a procedure of that kind would be strongly resented by very many voters who by this method would consider themselves as challenged at the poll.
In the second place, such a procedure would very materially slow up the taking of the vote and would probably necessitate almost

doubling the number of polling stations to be used. The increased cost of these additional polling stations would amount to almost as much as the preparation of the lists themselves.
After consideration, therefore, it has been decided to prepare a complete new list of voters in each polling division. These lists will be compiled by enumerators who will secure the necessary information. When prepared by the enumerators, these lists will neither be revised nor printed, and will constitute the 'official lists of voters to be used at the polls.
But in order to avoid the revision of the list and so that each qualified voter has an opportunity of exercising his franchise at the plebiscite, the vouching provisions of the elections act, restricted under the act to rural polling divisions, will be made applicable to both urban and rural polling divisions.
This will mean that where the name of a qualified voter has been inadvertently omitted by the enumerator from his list, such voter will be allowed to vote on polling day upon taking the required oath and upon being vouched for by a voter of the same polling division, whose name appears on the official list of voters as prepared by the enumerator.
In order that this vouching provision will not be made use of illegally, penalties will be specially provided in the bill.
In recommending the use of what are known as open lists, three considerations have been given weight.
In the first place, it was felt that this method would provide the best opportunity for every person entitled to vote to do so.
In the second place, by avoiding the delay ordinarily necessitated by revision, it is estimated that there will be a saving of at least one week and possibly more in the taking of the vote.
In the third place, it will prove to be less expensive, and it is estimated that a saving of about $200,000 will be effected by the use of the open lists in preference to the closed ones.
Might I state that this provision, as any other provision in the bill, will not be as immutable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians, but will be capable of such changes and amendments as the committee to which it is submitted may deem desirable.
I should now like to deal with the time required for taking the vote.
The chief electoral officer has prepared a memorandum setting out the minimum time required for the taking of the plebiscite, and since it is somewhat detailed, I believe it would be of advantage to read the memorandum prepared on that subject:

Plebiscite Act-Mr. McLarty
The minimum time required for the taking of a plebiscite, from the day that I am authorized to proceed with the printing of the necessary material to polling day, is ten weeks. This period may be divided into two sections.
For the first section, a period of six weeks is required for the preparatory work and I find it difficult to break down this section step by step as it consists of the period required for the printing of the necessary material, the shipping of this material to the various returning officers and its distribution by the returning officers to the enumerators appointed to prepare the lists of voters in each polling division.
I do not see how it could be possible to get the necessary enumeration material printed and transmit the same to every returning officer in a shorter period than five weeks. This would allow one week to the returning officers to make their distribution to the enumerators.
To obtain this result it would be necessary that my requisitions be given priority by the king's printer.
For the second section, a period of four weeks has been fixed in the proposed regulations; the day fixed for the commencement of enumeration in urban and rural polling divisions being the 28th day before polling day. As at the last general election the enumerators are allowed six days to complete their house-to-house visitations and three days to make the necessary number of copies of their list of voters, which in most cases must be written by hand. The lists are then transmitted to the returning officer who must in turn divide the lists for polling divisions containing more than 350 names, certify each part of the list so divided, and affix to each sheet of the enumerators' lists an impression with a rubber stamp designating that it is the official list to be used at the poll, then transmit the official list to the deputy returning officers with the ballot papers and other documents.
It is felt, especially in sparsely settled districts, that this preparation of the list by the enumerators, the sending of such list to the returning officer, the preparation of the list for the poll by the returning officer and its transmission to the deputy returning officer in the ballot box could not be accomplished in a shorter period than four weeks. It is true that the period between the date of the issue of the writs and polling day at the last general election was approximately eight weeks, but in that connection I wdsh to point out that on the day of the issue of the writs every rural enumerator had already received from the returning officer a complete set of enumerator's supplies with his instructions. After the writs had been issued all that was necessary for the returning officer to do was to complete the official appointments of the enumerators and transmit same to them with advice stating the days upon which the various operations had to be performed. Moreover, the remainder of the material required for a general election, consisting of some 300 printing jobs, was completed at the date of the issue of the writs and ready to be sent forwar.d.
Furthermore, consideration must be given to the time required to prepare ballot papers, regulations and instructions for the special returning officers, and other officials who will conduct the taking of the vote by Canadian service voters in Canada, in the United Kingdom, in Newfoundland, et cetera. The printing of this material and its transmission to the
United Kingdom et cetera will take quite a period of time. This material should be received by the special returning officer in London at least three weeks before polling day, since the voting starts twelve days before that day.
I should like now to deal with the estimated cost of the plebiscite. It is estimated that the cost of the plebiscite will be SI,500,000. It is not anticipated that this figure will be in any way exceeded, and it is possible that it will be somewhat reduced.
The suggestion has been made that we should endeavour to use voluntary workers in this connection. It would, however, be unwise to assume that the plebiscite could be carried on in all districts on a voluntary basis and, for this reason, in budgeting the cost it is necessary to assume that payment will be required for all services to be rendered.
The amount so stated will be required if everyone necessary for taking the plebiscite requires to be paid for his or her services.
On the other hand, it is the hope of the government that a large number will undertake the work without remuneration, and, if this hope is realized, it will result in a considerable reduction in the amount of this expenditure.
I have endeavoured to place before this committee 'the general principles which have been followed in the framing of the measure, and the general procedure which will be followed in the taking of the vote. I believe that the bill itself is the best guarantee of the desire of the government that people in every electoral district of Canada and those enrolled in military service will have that opportunity, which only a democratic form of government provides, of expressing freely his or her wish upon the issue which is involved.
The bill is one which is so just and fair that, bearing in mind 'the fact that the holding of a plebiscite has been already decided by this house, and irrespective of opinion held as to the desirability of holding one, all parties and groups can agree upon it.
Might I point out, however, that the measure is not unchangeable in form and immutable in its terms. If, in the course of its consideration, it can be shown, on the one hand, that the bill is too broad or, on the other, too narrow, every consideration will be given to the suggestions thus made.
The important point for this committee to remember is that this bill, when finally passed, will be evidence-and conclusive evidence- that the parliament of Canada, notwi'thstand^ ing that the clouds may be threatening and the skies black, has kept faith with the people of this country.
754	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) ,
At a time when we are fighting to maintain the democratic way of life throughout the world, let us endeavour in every way to maintain it in our own country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is not a very good time to start an extended debate on a matter of this kind. I do not propose to debate the measure at length, but, there are some observations which I desire to make with respect to this resolution. The proposal to which the resolution seeks to give effect has already of course been the subject of a lengthy debate in this house, and personally I see no great advantage to be gained by entering into a long discussion of the principle involved.
I have not changed my view with respect to this plebiscite. To me it is just as objectionable as when it was first announced. I am still convinced that it is an unworthy evasion of a responsibility which properly belongs to this house. I am still convinced that the importation of this practice into our parliamentary system is inconsistent with the principles of responsible government. The Secretary of State said that it was unique in the history of parliamentary institutions, or rather that the legislation proposed was unique in the history-


Norman Alexander McLarty: I wonder if my hon. friend will allow me to correct him on that. When I began my remarks I said that the position was unique in one respect, namely, that the general resolution which would ordinarily be discussed on this motion had already been discussed in the debate on the speech from the throne.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I misapprehended the purport of 'the minister's statement. I stand corrected, and I am obliged to him for the correction, but I would say this, that a government asking to be released from a position which it voluntarily took, without being asked to do so by the people of the country, is unique in the history of Canada- absolutely unique. In this connection I want to quote a paragraph that has come to my attention in a periodical with which I think all hon. members are familiar. I am quoting from Maclean's magazine of February 15 under the caption "Backstage at Ottawa, by the Man with a Notebook." I think most of us have read these articles from time to time. This is what he says:
In the whole long history of British government, in all the story of democratic government, there has been nothing like this.
Democratic governments-though not British governments-have taken both plebiscites and' referendums; plebiscites to give them direction before legislation was passed-with the verdict not binding-referendums to approve or reject
[Mr. McLarty.l
legislation already passed. Nowhere in democratic government has there been a case where the leader of a government, whether in peace or war, has taken a plebiscite to release himself from a pledge.
That is true. Never in the whole history of parliamentary government have the people of the country been confronted with a proposal to release a leader of a government from a pledge of this or any other kind, a pledge which, as I stated on a previous occasion, was self-imposed and which I assert was not an issue in the last general election.
In the course of his remarks the Secretary of State made the assertion that this was not the first plebiscite bill to be found upon the statute books of this country. I recall that some forty-three years ago the then leader of the government, Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in order to stall off a proposal which was then being pressed upon him by the temperance and prohibition forces, did hold a plebiscite on the question of the sale of intoxicating liquor in Canada. I was a boy in 1898 but I remember the occasion well, and I remember the anxiety everyone felt as to what would be the result of the plebiscite. I recall, too, that the temperance people fathered the affirmative, and the brewers and distillers fathered the negative-fathered it pretty well, I think.


Charles Gavan Power: Look at the results-not the brewers and distillers; but there were a great many wet votes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In your province, yes. The liquor interests were pretty well out opposing the plebiscite. That was their right; I am not questioning it, nor am I making any attack on the liquor interests of this country. I am merely reciting a matter of history. But this is the point: on that plebiscite the people voted by a substantial majority to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor.


Charles Gavan Power: Thirteen thousand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, the people of my hon. friend's province voted overwhelmingly against it, but the great mass of the electorate in every other province, I think, voted for the principle. Sir Wilfrid refused to act, on the theory that the majority was not sufficiently decisive. That is my recollection. I have not looked up the debates; I did not think it necessary. I should not have referred to it at all had not the Secretary of State himself said that there was a precedent for a plebiscite. But Sir Wilfrid did not act, on the theory, as I recall it, that there was too nice a balance among the electorate. I think that is a fair statement of the position.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


An hon. MEMBER:: A great number did not vote.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Many did not vote, and there will be many who will not vote in this plebiscite; make no mistake about that.
That brings me to the consideration of this question: if upon this plebiscite the result is inconclusive, what will the Prime Minister do?


An hon. MEMBER:: Stall a while.


Richard Burpee Hanson: "Stall" is not a nice word to use; it is a slang word and I am not going to use it. But I have no doubt that if the result is indecisive the Prime Minister \Vill do nothing unless the ministers who sit around him and beside him and who want to do something compel him to do something. If the exhibition we had from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) the other day is an indication, I am not at all sure that party loyalty and partisan considerations will not outweigh principle with hon. members on the treasury benches. I am afraid it will.
Why is this plebiscite being taken? Perhaps I should not rehash that whole story again, especially when it is so near six o'clock. But without doubt this plebiscite is being taken to save the face of the ministry. Has it a single element of courage about it? Silence gives consent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are just being courteous.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, the
minister usually is very courteous. I should thank him. But I am not quite so sure that that is the reason for his silence. If the result is indecisive, I ask, what is the ministry to do? Will they tell the house and the country? That is one of the first considerations. Someone should answer that question before this debate closes.


Mr. KIRK:: You should go out and make it decisive.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the
hon. member say that it is any responsibility of mine to go out and ask the people to vote for this plebiscite?


An hon. MEMBER:: It is everybody's.
Mr. HANSON (York-SunbupO :	It is not
my baby. On a matter of principle I prefer the direct approach rather than the indirect approach of hon. gentlemen opposite. I am prepared to stake my political life on any matter of principle, while hon. gentlemen opposite are seeking to hide and save their political skins behind a subterfuge, tp do by the backdoor method something they do not
dare to do at the front door. On the one hand their followers, like the premier of Quebec-I am not so sure about the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent); but at all events his political godfather the premier of Quebec-told the people of Quebec in the recent by-elections that the Prime Minister of this country had always been against conscription and always would be and there would be no compulsory military service-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He did not say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -while
the Sifton press that supports this government is assuring people in the west, to keep the boys in line, that if the plebiscite carries of course there will be compulsory military service. Heads I win, -tails you lose; that is what this is.
On the question of the plebiscite itself, I was astonished to hear the Secretary of State say that the question to be asked would not be in the bill but would be a matter of proclamation. As to the time, it is of course obvious that you could not, if you want to hold this plebiscite within a reasonable time, fix a definite date, because nobody knows when the bill, if passed, will become law. But certainly the Prime Minister gave the categorical undertaking that a certain question would be put to the people of this country. Why should it be left to a proclamation which may be twiddled around by the government and we may not have that question put to the people? You -might -have something entirely different, or something which will have a shaded meaning, or something which will be different in principle, even, from what was stated not only in the speech from the throne but by the Prime Minister himself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to -my hon. friend that I made the statement very clearly as to what the question would be. If my hon. friend has any doubt about my word in the matter certainly I would have no Objection, as I do not think any of my colleagues would, to the question being inserted in the bill. I rather gathered from what the minister has said that it was assumed no one would question the word of the Prime Minister on a specific statement which related to a measure of this kind, and that the insertion of the question in the bill would therefore be superfluous.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to have the Prime Minister make that statement, because I want some certainty. When I hear the Secretary of State say that it will
756	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
be the subject of proclamation, over which parliament will have no control but over which the government will have, full control-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -I may
be pardoned if I appear a little suspicious that there is some change in plan, or that there may be some change. Of course the Prime Minister now has pledged his word that the question will not be altered-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Absolutely not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -and that, if necessary' the question will be put in the bill. So that we have learned something this afternoon.


Mr. CRERAR:: You had that statement before.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We had
the statement, but that was all washed out when the Secretary of State said it would not be in the bill but would be in the proclamation.


Norman Alexander McLarty: But I stated that it would be identical with what the Prime Minister told this house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understood that the general scope of the question would be the same, but the Prime Minister categorically placed upon the records of this house the exact question that would be asked.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the one that will be given to the people.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right; now we certainly have got something definite on that point. I am glad I raised the question, because it left me, at all events, somewhat up in the air, if I might use the expression, as to what we could expect. Of course I had not seen the prepared statement of the Secretary of State. Hon. gentlemen opposite knew exactly what he was going to say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had never
heard a word of it uniil this afternoon.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had to gather what I could as it went along. But I do not recall that the Secretary of State used the word "identical", or said that the question would be identical with what the Prime Minister had stated.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Just to clear that up, what I said was this: "The Prime Minister

has already announced in this house the question that will be submitted to the people." I do not know that I used the word "identical"; I assumed that the question he announced in the house was the one that was going to the people, and stated so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not desire to get into any discussion, and I have never questioned the honour of the Prime Minister, as he knows. But I should just like to make this observation, that the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons cannot be read into a statute. I found that out in the course of some litigation; a statement made by Mr. Fielding, when he was Minister of Finance, did not receive much attention from the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. One would like to remind courts of law what legislators had in mind when they passed legislation, in order to ascertain the meaning of that legislation; but the judges of this country, the judges of Britain and for aught I know the judges of the neighbouring republic, treat very cavalierly statements made by legislators during the passing of legislation. Certainly I had no intention of questioning the Prime Minister's bona fides. I am glad I raised the question, however, because it is now certain.
I do not want to say anything more on the question of the general principle. Apparently the government are adamant in their decision to proceed, adamant even though the enemy may be knocking at our door. That would seem to be a difficult thing to comprehend. We will hold a plebiscite to ascertain whether the Prime Minister is to be relieved from an election pledge, when Vancouver may be under assault by Japanese forces. Is that not a ridiculous position in which to place the people of this country, and for the government of this country to be placed in, during war time? I do not think I shall say anything more about it, but as the opportunity offers, while now registering my disapproval of the whole procedure, I shall seek to analyse the detailed proposals as judicially as possible, with a view to improving them if that can be done.
It is now almost six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I really do not think I can finish this afternoon, therefore I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 5.58 p.m.

Questions
Monday, February 23, 1942