1942-02-25

[Stage Direction]
The house, in conformity with a resolution, agreed to on motion of the right hon. the Prime Minister on Friday, the 20th day of February instant, went into secret session, until the house should otherwise order.
At the conclusion of the secret session, the following report of its proceedings was issued under the authority of Mr. Speaker.
"A secret session of the House of Commons was held at 3 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday the 24th February, 1942.
"The sitting was devoted to the question of the defence of Canada in its widest qualification. Statements were made by the Honourable Messrs. Ralston, Power and Macdonald, the ministers in charge of National Defence. A variety of questions dealing with different aspects of the war were asked and answered. Many details were given the members of the house.
J. Allison Glen,
Speaker."
It being twenty minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 25, 1942


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I wish to lay on the table a copy of an order in council which was passed yesterday amending the defence of Canada regulations and giving the Minister of Justice increased powers to require persons to leave "protected areas." It might be of service to the house if I were to table at this time a number of orders in council that have been passed which have a special relation to conditions as they exist in the province of British Columbia as a result of situations arising out of Japan's declaration of war.
The order in council which I have just tabled, P.C. 14S6, amends the defence of Canada regulations so as to provide authority for the Minister of Justice to require any or all persons to leave a protected area as defined by order of the Minister of National Defence 44561-52
and to impose restrictions in respect of their employment, business, movement or places of residence. Under this authority the Minister of Justice may also prohibit or restrict the possession or use by any or all persons in the protected area of any specified articles and require their delivery to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In short, the defence of Canada regulations as now amended give the Minister of Justice full power to take any required security measures with regard to any person if in the protected area. The protected area in British Columbia has already been defined by the Minister of National Defence as the coastal area between the Cascade mountains and the sea, including all the islands off the coast of British Columbia.
In addition to the above mentioned order in council, the following orders have previously been passed relating to security on the Pacific coast:
P.C. 9591, December 7, 1941 and P.C. 9760, December 16, 1941, respecting compulsory registration of all persons of Japanese race. That has already been tabled.
P.C. 9761, December 16, 1941, providing for control of vessels used or operated by persons of Japanese race.
P.C. 251 of January 13, 1942, prohibiting the issuance of fishing licences to persons of Japanese race, and prohibiting such persons from serving on fishing vessels. That has also been tabled.
P.C. 365, January 16, 1942, amending the Defence of Canada regulations so as to authorize the Minister of National Defence, with the concurrence of the Minister of Justice to declare any area in Canada a protected area, or if it appears necessary or expedient so to do, and in the public interest, and in respect of such areas conferring certain powers with regard to the persons and property of any enemy aliens.
P.C. 1271, February 17, 1942, providing for the establishment of a Canadian-Japanese corf struction corps, to be formed by Canadian nationals of Japanese racial origin, and establishing conditions of enrolment and terms of service for the said corps.
P.C. 1348, February 19, 1942, authorizing the establishment of work camps for male enemy aliens including Japanese nationals, on projects outside protected areas.
P.C. 1365 of February 19, 1942, prohibiting the possession of fire-arms or explosives by persons of Japanese race.
P.C. 1457 of February 24, 1942, regulating the acquisition of land or any interest therein, or the growing of crops in Canada by persons of Japanese race and by Japanese controlled companies.

Japanese Nationals

In order to complete the record of the principal orders in council in this connection, copies of the following orders in council (in addition to P.C. 1486 of February 24, 1942), are tabled herewith:
P.C. 365 of January 16. 1942; P.C. 1271 of February 17, 1942: P.C. 1348 of February 19, 1942; P.C. 1365 of February 19, 1942; and P.C. 1457 of February 24, 1942.


Mr. NEILL:: Would it be possible to have these orders in council included in Foies and Proceedingsf It would save a good deal of copying, and we should like to have access to them.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: It would be very convenient.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I see no reason why they should not be included in the Votes and Proceedings if the house is agreeable. The clerk might be so instructed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I
appreciated aright what the Prime Minister said, that this order in council, which was passed on February 24, probably at the time we were in secret session yesterday-
Mr.	MACKENZIE KING: No,	it was
passed before the session.
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	Well, I
am just suggesting that we did observe three cabinet ministers hurry to leave the chamber last night and come back again, and I have a right to draw some conclusions.
Mr.	CRERAR:	Three cabinet	ministers
cannot pass an order in council.
Mr.	HANSON	(York-Sunbury):	Well, I
may be wrong in my deduction. If I apprehended aright what the Prime Minister said, the order is not mandatory on the Minister of Justice; it is merely enabling, is it not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it were made mandatory in its broad terms, I am afraid the Minister of Justice would have a very large order because it gives him power over any person in a protected area to take any step that the security of the people of British Columbia would seem to necessitate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The answer is, it is merely enabling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, it is an all-enabling order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that is a good way to put it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I
should give to the house a statement I gave to the press this morning. I would have made it to the house first but I thought it was in the interest of law and order out on

the Pacific coast that this communication should reach British Columbia without delay.
The statement was to the effect that power had been given to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to exclude any or all persons, regardless of their citizenship, from protected areas as defined under the defence of Canada regulations.
The new regulation corresponds very closely to the proclamation issued by the President of the United States on Friday.
Under the amended order the Minister of Justice may require any or all persons, whether British subjects or not, to leave a protected area. He is further authorized to impose such restrictions as he may specify in respect of their employment, business, movements or places of residence. He can prohibit or restrict the possession or use by any or all persons in the protected area of any specified articles and can require the delivery of such articles to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In short, the defence of Canada regulations as now amended give the Minister of Justice full power to take any required security measure within the protected area with regard to any person within that area.
The protected area in British Columbia in which the new order will apply has been defined by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) as the coastal belt between the Cascade mountains and the sea, including all the islands off the coast of British Columbia.
It is the policy of the government to use the powers of tlhis order to take all necessary security measures to safeguard the defences of the Pacific coast of Canada.



* QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	How many coastal motor boats have been ordered?
2.	How many were completed by October 31, 1941?
3.	What was the total cost?
4.	How many of these boats reached Halifax before the close of navigation?
5.	How' many of these boats are now in commission?
6.	In what state of completion are the balance of the boats?
7.	At what points are a.ny boats, which did not reach Halifax before the close of navigation, tied up?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: This question was brought up the other day, and I answered it to my hon. friend privately. I hope he will be ready to drop it from the order paper.

Questions


Mr. BRUCE:: That is satisfactory to me, Mr. Speaker.
Question dropped.


JAPANESE NATIONALS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Did the government, on January 14, last, issue a statement of policy regarding Japanese in British Columbia?
2.	Did one of the items state that Japanese nationals will be forbidden to possess or use short wave radio receiving sets, radio transmitters and cameras?
3.	Was such prohibition enforced by order in council, and, if so, what was the number of such order?
4.	Were instructions given to any military or police authorities to enforce the said order in council?
5.	If so, ivhen and to whom ?
6.	How many of the receiving sets, transmitters and cameras have been surrendered or seized up to date?
7.	Why was the restriction confined to Japanese nationals and not extended to those born in Japan and since 1922 naturalized in Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Order-in-council P.C. 365 January 15, 1942, gives the minister the power to make such prohibition from time to time, and he has made an order dated February 5, 1942.
4.	Yes.
5.	February 5, 1942. Commissioner, R.C.M. Police.
6.	No information as yet.
7.	The restriction is not now confined to Japanese nationals.


PENITENTIARIES COMMISSION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	When was the royal commission on prisons appointed, and who were i.ts members?
2.	What was the total cost of this commission, including fees, salaries, travelling expenses and all other emoluments?
3.	When was the report received?
4.	Have any of its recommendations been carried out?
5.	When will the penitentiary commission be appointed ?
6.	What is the reason for the delay?
7.	Who are the present chief heads operating this branch of the service, and what training have they for work of this nature?
8.	Will consideration be given to giving effect to the Borstal system?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	February 27, 1936. Hon. Mr. Justice Joseph Archambault, R. W. Craig, K.C., J. C. McRuer, K.C.
2.	$108,719.70.
3.	Tabled June 14, 1938.
4.	Yes.
5.	This involves a question of policy.
6.	See answer to question 5.
7.	(a) P. M. Anderson, K.C., senior advisory counsel, acting for the deputy minister of justice with respect to penitentiary matters. Mr. Anderson has been so acting for the last four years.
(b)	Acting Superintendent G. L. Sauvant, Bachelor of Arts, university of Montreal; translator and proof reader, 1915, clerk of the crown in chancery; war service with French forces, graduate of St. Cyr Military Academy, wounded, 1917, served as interpreter during convalescence, instructor in bayonet fighting and grenade throwing; appointed second lieutenant in March, 1919; decorations, Croix de Guerre, Verdun medal; agent for Dominion Publishing Company; contributor to Revue Jeanne d'Arc of Ottawa; appointed instructor in French at Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario, 1924; appointed librarian school teacher, St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, March 5, 1928, to November 19, 1929; promoted warden's clerk, 1st August, 1929; promoted inspector of penitentiaries, July 16, 1934; sent to St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary as acting warden, October 1, 1937; appointed acting superintendent of penitentiaries, July 27, 1938; (Coronation medal).
(c)	Inspector E. L. O'Leary, O.A.S.: education received at Richibucto, N.B., and St. Dunstan's college, Charlottetown (commercial course); 1910-13, Royal Bank of Canada; 1914, bookkeeper, R. Sullivan & Co., St. John, N.B.; 1914-19, with C.E.F. and R.A.F.; granted commission C.F.A., 1916, awarded military cross, 1918; 1920-23, with Soldier Settlement Board in Edmonton; 1923-27, accountant with Abitibi Power and Paper Co.; 1927, assistant paymaster with Lake St. John Power and Paper Co. Ltd.; 1928, office manager, power plant, with P. Lyall and Sons Construction Co. Ltd.; 1930-32, chief accountant, Seigniory Club, Quebec; 1933, accountant, Watson Jack & Co. Ltd.; 1934, accountant, Benzolene Corp. Ltd.; 1935, appointed inspector of penitentiaries; 1940, granted leave of absence, without pay, for purpose of enlistment in Royal Canadian Air Force.
(d)	Inspector G. E. Shortt: Bachelor of Arts (Queen's); B.L.S. (McGill); Ph.D. (university of Michigan, Ann Arbor); 1915-17, service with C.E.F. conducting officer, troop transports, north Atlantic; 1917-18 English civil service (seed oat control, England and Wales); three years business administration, including two years as executive General Motors Acceptance Corporation; five and one-half years, investigator under Combines Investigation Act; one year with royal commission to investigate the penal system of
Questions

Canada (conferences with leading prison administrators and .investigation of foreign prisons); appointed inspector and auditor of penitentiaries, July 13, 1938; Canadian civil service employment 15 years.
S.	This involves a question of policy.


Mr. MAYHEW:: Which, if any, of the recommendations of the royal commission on the penal system of Canada in its report of April, 1938, have already been, or are about to be, acted upon?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	(a) A convict at present earns remission as from the date of admission instead of the seventh month of sentence as was the case previously.
(b)	Remission is now allowed for holidays and also for periods of sickness.
(c)	For purposes of remission, overlapping terms are considered as one.
2.	A thorough inspection of penitentiary industries has been made.
3.	Shaving and bathing of convicts have been made more frequent.
4.	In each case recommended by wardens, convicts who are to be rearrested on discharge, or deported, have been allowed their remuneration earned during their sentences.
5.	Arrangements are being made to have some penitentiary farm vegetables canned commercially for own use.
Kingston	
St. Vincent de Paul
Dorchester	
Manitoba	
British Columbia. .
Saskatchewan	
Collin's Bay	
6.	Wardens are now more fully consulted with regard to the advisability of improvements in connection with their work.
7.	More liberal visiting and writing privileges have been accorded to deserving convicts.
8.	Improved cell lighting has been installed wherever possible.
9.	Kitchens have been renovated and special ranges installed in practically every institution. Cleanliness and preparation of food are receiving careful attention.
10.	Contributions of convicts to the radio entertainment fund have been discontinued.
11.	In several penitentiaries, young convicts are now trained in the motor mechanic trade, notwithstanding that they are. still segregated from adult class. In one institution, a new shoe shop has been opened and young convicts only are employed therein.
12.	Practically all vegetables required in the penitentiary service are now produced on the penitentiary farms. Surpluses of over one million pounds were diverted to army and other government departments in 1941.
13.	A dairy herd has been established in one of the penitentiaries not previously so equipped.
14.	Wardens were authorized to use waste material for demonstrational purposes in convict training.
15.	Many more officers have been made permanent within the limitations placed by the treasury board:
1938-39	1939-40	1940-41	1941-42	Total30	20	Nil '	Nil	5039	15	Nil	Nil	5426	11	Nil	Nil	3715	15	Nil	Nil	3027	13	Nil	Nil	4010	20	Nil	Nil	3024	15	Nil	Nil	39171	109	28016.	Certain officers were selected to proceed, to the training school, Wakefield, England, for a course of instruction. The first draft proceeded in 1939, but subsequent drafts were cancelled in September of the same year on account of the war.17.	Poultry raising has been started in one penitentiary.18.	Convicts are provided with lighters; convicts pay for flints only.19.	More convicts are being employed in industrial labour.20.	Officers' private cars now may be repaired by convict labour.
fMr. St. Laurent 1
21.	More schooling is provided for young convicts at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary.
22.	Recommendations regarding the keeping of stores have been followed as far as possible and are the general practice to be observed in the future.
23.	Authority for expenditures by wardens has been increased, thereby reducing the number of requests and correspondence for minor expenditures of maintenance and other routine matters.
24.	In several penitentiaries, showers have been installed in the cell blocks.

Questions


INCOME WAR TAX ACT-APPEALS
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	How many appeals from assessment under the Income War Tax Act were made (a) by corporations, (b) by individuals, during each of the fiscal years ending March 31, 1939, 1940 and 1941?
2.	How many of such appeals were determined personally by the Minister of National Revenue?
3.	How many of such appeals were determined by the commissioner of income tax or by other official pursuant to authority purported to be vested in such official by the minister?
4.	How many of such appeals are still pending?
5.	How many of such appeals were determined in favour of (a) the appellant, (b) the crown?
6.	In how many cases did the appellant serve notice of dissatisfaction with the decision and appeal to the exchequer court?
7.	How many of such eases were determined by the exchequer court in favour of (a) the appellant, (b) the crown?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	(a) 1939,	163;	1940,	176;	1941,	137.
(b) 1939, 175; 1940, 146; 1941, 149.
2.	No records available.
3.	No records available.
4.	(a) 1939, 7; 1940, IS; 1941, 43. (b) 1939,. 15; 1940, 15; 1941, 49.
5.	(a) Corporations: 1939, 65; 1940, 43;
1941, 26. Individuals: 1939, 70; 1940, 40; 1941, 31.	(b) Corporations: 1939, 91; 1940,
115; 1941, 68. Individuals: 1939, 90; 1940, 91; 1941, 69.
6.	Corporations: 1939, 5.
7.	(a) 1; (b) 4.


DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS-INTERNMENTS
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	How many advisory committees have been appointed under regulation 22 of the defence of Canada regulations?
2.	What are the names of the members of each such committee?
3.	When was each such committee appointed?
4.	How many objections to internment have been heard by each such committee?
5.	In how many cases has each committee recommended (a) the release of an internee, (b) the continued detention of an internee?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Under regulation 22 of the defence of Canada regulations (consolidation), 1941-two.
2.	(1) Daniel O'Connell, K.C., former county court judge; Robert Taschereau, K.C., William M. Dickson.
(2) His Honour Judge J. C. A. Cameron, Arthur Gagne, K.C., Robert Forsyth, K.C.
3.	(1) June 26, 1941. (2) July 14, 1941.
4.	(1) 83. (2) 136.
5.	(1) (a) 43 releases; (b) 40 continued detention.
(2) (a) 76 releases; (b)	60 continued
detention.


BUREAU OF PUBLIC INFORMATION-TOURIST AND TRAVEL BUREAUX
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What salary, remuneration or allowance do members of the tourist development committee receive from any department of the government?
2.	Wliat members of the tourist development committee, bureau of public information or Canadian travel bureau hail from the maritime provinces?
3.	What is the scope of authority of the bureau of public information?
4.	Does the said bureau deal with naval and military matters?
5.	If so, in what manner?
6.	How does the bureau distribute its material?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	None.
2.	(a) None; largely an interdepartmental committee. WTe have no record of the birthplace of members of the committee; representation thereon is not on a geographical basis.
(b)	Miss Muriel Ann Mosley, secretary to the director of public information; Mr. E. A. Corbett, speakers' division, public information.
(c)	Mr. D. Leo Dolan, chief, Canadian travel bureau. Mr. H. A. McCallum, assistant chief, Canadian travel bureau.
3.	To collect and disseminate to the public, information concerning the various phases of the war effort of the Canadian people and the
' activities of the government in relation thereto, and generally to coordinate the existing public information services of the government and originate or employ other means in order that the same may be used in the most efficient way for the obtaining of the utmost aid from the people of Canada in the national emergency which has arisen.
4.	Only to the extent of distributing material provided by those departments and the printing of booklets and posters specifically requested by them.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
6.	Through the news services; photographic services; press gallery; by direct mail; through clubs, societies and other organizations; members of parliament; by radio and on the motion picture screen. Poster material is distributed through factories, firms, government offices and individuals, et cetera.


*LANCASTER MILITARY HOSPITAL-WEST ST. JOHN
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What were the names of all employees, including medical and clerical staff, of Lancaster hospital, West Saint John, from the year 1919 to the year 1941?
2.	What were their salaries per year and what were theiir pensions per year from 1919 to 1941?
Questions

3.	Were any of these employees supplied with automobiles by the government? If so, how many and what are their names?
4.	What were the prices of these automobiles?
5.	What year were such automobiles purchased ?
6.	What was the cost of operating these ears from the date of purchase to the year 1941?
7.	What year was Lancaster hospital opened as a military hospital?
8.	What was the total cost of the Lancaster hospital since its opening as a military hospital to the year 1941?
9.	What was the cost of all repairs to Lancaster hospital since its opening as a military hospital to the year 1941?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The other day I informed my hon. friend that some of this information was not available. If he will consult me or some of my officers, we shall be glad to make available What information we have.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was a question of lessening the time. I undertook to see the hon. member but did not. The question can stand in the meantime.
Question stands.


SUCCESSION DUTY
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the total amount of succession duty under the Dominion Succession Duty Act that has been (a) assessed, (h) collected since the said act was assented to on the 14th of June, 1941?
2.	How many persons deceased since the said date have left estates with a gross valuation of $500,000 or over?
3.	(a) What were the names and addresses of such persons; (b) what was the aggregate value of, and amount of succession duty assessed or levied against each of said estates?
Mr. GIBSON;
1.	(a) $477,218.40.	(b) $3,836,890.64 as at
January 31, 1942.
2.	Records not available because of six months period for filing after the death of deceased; however, the number filed is 17.
3.	It is not deemed in the .public interest to give the individual particulars requested in this question.


EAST AND WEST BLOCKS, OTTAWA-FIRE PROTECTION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WINKLER;
1.	Are precautions contemplated or have they been taken, to prevent destruction by fire of the historic east and west blocks in the group of government buildings at Ottawa?
2.	Has an estimate been made of the cost of installing a sprinkler system in those buildings?
3.	If so, what is the amount?
Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	The east and west blocks are protected by the May-Oatway fire detector system which is connected to the city fire alarm system. In addition there are stand pipes with hose racks, fire pumps and also portable chemical fire extinguishers.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
1941 VICTORY LOAN


Mr. QUELCH:: 1.	What amount was loaned by the chartered banks to individuals and corporations for the purchase of victory bonds in 1941?
2.	What -amount has been loaned to individuals and corporations on the security of Victory bonds purchased in 1941?
3.	What rate of interest was charged on these loans?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	It is understood that loans made by the chartered banks to finance the purchase of victory loan bonds by individuals, corporations and other bodies, totalled $135,978,539 on June 30, 1941.
2.	No information other than given in No. 1.
3.	For a period of six months subsequent to June 15, 1941, the rate of interest charged on such loans was equal to the coupon rate received in the victory bonds. -


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-ANNUAL REPORT
Mr. McGREGOR:: [DOT]
1.	On what date did the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police complete the annual report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the year ended March 31 1941 ?
2.	On what date was the said report transmitted by the Minister of Justice to His Excellency .the Governor General?
3.	On what date was the said report sent to the king's printer for printing?
4.	On what date was the printing and binding of the said report completed?
5.	On what date was the said report laid on the table of -the House of Commons?


Mr. St. LAURENT:: 1.	On account of pressure of other work, the report was not completed until August 16, 1941.
2.	This action is not usually taken.
3.	English edition, August 18, 1941. French edition, October 20, 1941.
4.	English edition, October 16, 1941. French edition, December 19, 1941.
5.	February 12, 1942, both editions.

Motions for Papers



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. PARENT:: What is the number of young men of 21, 22, 23 and 24 years of age who were called before a medical board under the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, in the following districts:	(a) London, (b)
Toronto, (c) Kingston, (d) head of the lakes,
(e)	Montreal, (f) Quebec, (g) Halifax, (h) New Brunswick, (i) Prince Edward Island, (j) Manitoba, (k) British Columbia, (1) Saskatchewan, (m) Alberta?


WEYBURN, SASK.., AIRPORT
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	What is the total amount for which commitments have been made in respect to the construction of the airport at Weyburn, Saskatchewan ?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of this project?
3.	From what person or persons was the land purchased as a site for said airport?
4.	What is the legal description of each piece of land purchased or leased and how much was paid for each parcel of land?
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS 1941 VICTORY LOAN Mr. CHURCH:
For a return showing a breakdown of the details given in a return, November 12, _ 1941, in connection with the sale of the 1941 victory loan, as follows:-
Preparation and distribution of
bonds	$ 363,921 86
Administration expenses:
Salaries	$149,881	67
Travelling expenses.. 285,038 37 Stationery and office
supplies	 160,673	25
Rental of office space 29,006 77 Sundry expenses, including postage, telephone, telegraph,
etc	 145,226	24

 769,826 30
Publicity expenses:
Newspaper and magazine 'advertising.... 476,677 00 Posters, including billboard posters and
posting	
79,565	83Radio'advertising.. ..	86,618	17
Local advertising.... 160,888 13
Other publicity	 254,319 85

 1,058,068	98
Commissions to individual canvassers on general subscriptions. 1,551,713 80 Remuneration to banks, trust and loan companies-service fee for handling and delivering bonds... 1,750,000	00
Remuneration to investment dealers and stockbrokers re pooled subscriptions	
3,293,040	00Total	$8,786,570	94
The said return to show the details of each of the main items set out aforesaid.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The hon. gentleman has written me about this notice and has kindly consented to allow me some discretion as to the items which will be broken down. I am quite content to have it passed on the understanding that information which it has never been considered in accord with the public interest to disclose shall not be disclosed. That applies to some of the items.


Mr. CHURCH:: I have no idea of interfering with anything. This motion was called three times when I was away. Perhaps I might say a few words about it.
My idea in bringing this up last November was in regard to past loans. I thought the chartered banks, the Bank of Canada, the post offices and other departments could effect a great economy. I think the government might well pass it, and break it down after, if that is satisfactory. If not, it can be dropped, and I will bring it up again after the present loan is over.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I assume that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) did not hear the statement of the Minister of Finance. Could not a return be brought down subject to the reservation stated by the minister? I have an idea that the hon. member thinks the introduction of this question at the moment, and the bringing down of a return based thereon, might be detrimental to the present loan, and of course he would like to avoid that. However, I should like to see some of this information brought down, though certainly I would not want it done at the expense of the present loan, if the minister thinks it might have that effect. But could it not be passed, with the understanding that the minister will use his own discretion as to what he shall bring down?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It seemed to be the feeling of some of my colleagues at least that it would be undesirable to pass this motion now, and the hon. gentleman offered to let it drop. If he wants to put it on the order paper again, however, I can give him some of this information. Some of it I cannot give; some it would be most undesirable to give. For instance, there were some seventeen thousand canvassers in the last loan, and it would be an impossible task, and undesirable, to say what each one of them received.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think it would be desirable to let the motion drop now. In the meantime I will confer with the hon. member, and perhaps he and I can frame a motion that will bring down the information he desires.
Prince Edward Island Ferry


DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS-AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS
Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all orders in council, reports and other documents in tile possession of the government relative to the defence of Canada regulations. Also a copy of all correspondence exchanged with the provinces relative to the enforcement of blackouts, covered by section 35 of the defence of Canada rules and regulations, as well as a copy of the order in council delegating this authority to provincial attorneys general instead of to the district military authorities.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This motion refers to an order in council delegating authority to provincial attorneys general instead of to district military authorities. There is no such order in council. There is an instrument of delegation which I can table immediately. The correspondence will be somewhat voluminous, and to produce it may take some time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Transport, who I am sorry is not in his seat, to the situation which has arisen in connection with the car ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. I ask the house to bear with me while I give a brief recital of the present position as I see it.
On the 23rd instant, the day before yesterday, the ferry Prince Edward Island was held up at Borden with a leaky boiler, and there is now no conveyance by boat between the mainland and the island. All freight and passenger movement are held up, and the only chance to get on and off the island is by air. Just how long it will take to repair the boiler is not known. I am advised that last week there were over one hundred1 carloads of freight at Tormentine awaiting shipment to the island, and in addition to the ordinary shipments of live stock moving off the island, over two hundred reefer cars were required to ship potatoes to the United States. These potatoes represent a value to the farmers of approximately $1,000 per car, and if the situation does not improve very shortly a very severe loss will be sustained. I understand that the transportation committee of the Charlottetown board of trade met on the 23rd instant and passed a resolution, which was telegraphed to the Prime Minister, but so far as I know no answer has yet been received.

I placed some questions about this matter on the order paper for the purpose of eliciting some information, but the answers brought down on Monday last indicate that nothing is being done to improve the situation. Of course, when these questions were placed on the order paper the present ferry was not out of commission. I am also advised that if an. order had been given in the United States for a new ferry within a reasonable time after the Charlottetown was lost, that order could have been filled, since they are filling orders over there for icebreakers and so on for the great lakes.	.
Will the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Transport, or in his absence the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who has had perhaps more to do with this matter than anyone else, indicate what is intended to be done to cope with the present situation, which is rapidly going from bad to worse, perhaps through no fault on the part of anyone in particular but because of delay in dealing with the situation.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: This matter has been giving
the government a great deal of concern. I assume that the Department of Munitions and Supply is the bottleneck. The position is that in order to rebuild this ferry we would have to give up a berth in one of our shipyards for a period of some fifteen months. We would have to divert sufficient steel to build probably two or three twin screw corvettes, which are badly needed; and considering the urgency of our naval requirements and of shipbuilding generally, we have not thought it advisable to do this.
My hon. friend is quite mistaken as to the possibility of having the ferry built in the United States. That possibility was explored immediately after the sinking. We scoured the second-hand market there, and looked into the position of the shipyards. At that time every shipyard was controlled by the government, and it was quite impossible to get a berth.
The service is carried on at the moment 'by a car ferry which handled the service until 1929, I think, and which is a perfectly good ferry. There are two car ferries on the run, but at present only one operates; and it is not unusual for the present ferry to carry on the service for six weeks or two months at this time of year. That ferry is operating. There was a short delay while a boiler was overhauled or repaired, but these things do occur when there is only one boat in operation, causing a temporary tie-up of cars. But unless this service 'has changed tremendously

Armed Forces-Farmers' Sons
since earlier years the present car ferry should be able to handle the traffic with reasonable satisfaction to the people on the island. At this time of year, when the floe ice is heavy, the service always has been subject to short interruptions. It is not unusual to have a ferry go out to sea and be away for thirty-six hours before being able to dock on the other side; at least that lias occurred more than once. In the meantime I would remind -hon. members that a second service has been inaugurated between Wood island and Pictou, which I believe will relieve toe situation considerably during the summer months.
I can assure every hon. member that the government is exceedingly anxious to rectify this situation, but at the moment that could be done only at great cost to our war effort. We are organized in one set of yards to build cargo boats, which we are launching every two months from every berth. It would .perhaps mean losing eight or ten cargo vessels if we built a new ferry or, alternatively, losing two or three corvettes. In this period of war we must weigh the relative urgency of the needs in both directions, and that we have . been doing. The moment we think we can spare a berth of any sort -that can build a successor to the Charlottetown, toe boat will be built. In the meantime a ferry has been found, I think in San Francisco or Los Angeles, which -may be of some service as a stand-by boat. This is being examined very closely, and if it is found at all satisfactory it will be brought around and put on the service for such assistance as it is able to render.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence, arising out of a very large number of communications I have been receiving from farmers located all across Canada, asking whether or not in view of the pronounced Labour shortage which now exists on the farms it is the intention of the government to enable fanners' sons or others qualified to do farm work to go on leave, so that the spring work may be properly completed.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can say that just at this instant I have not in mind any special or new policy with regard to that matter. It has each year been taken into consideration, having regard to the requirements of various units, and where they were placed. I may
say that with respect to certain units in certain locations it was impossible to make any substantial break in the ranks by the granting of leave. In other locations, and with respect to other units that was possible, and it has been done.
As I say, I have not at present in mind any general principle which could govern uniformly across Canada. But I assure my hon. friend the matter will have every study, and the very best possible will be done in order to make men available where they can be made available for the important work to which the hon. member has referred.


Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, further to the question asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), I will not attempt to read or to refer to the many communications I have received, but I should like to ask a further question of the minister, indicated in several of the communications I have received. Is there any possibility of the extension of the term of exemption to, say, one year, in connection with farmers' sons? I have some very urgent cases I could show the minister, and I shall be glad to do so. But could that term be extended so that it will cover the whole year?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about conscription?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is referring to regulations made by the Department of National War Services rather than by the Department of National Defence. Furthermore, he will realize that w'hat he is asking for is, in effect, direct exemption for one year for a certain class. That does not fit in very well with all that has been said with respect to the necessity for the utilization of man-power, and the effort for total war.
In so far as my department can be of service in working out any more equitable situation with respect to those on the farm, I shall be glad to see that its services are available, and that conferences and consultations are held, But I cannot say anything further than that. One cannot offhand and without due consideration indicate a new policy or draft a new regulation.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I am not asking that extended exemption be given in general; that is not my point at all. But there are extreme cases. For instance, may farmers about to do their spring work be assured that they will -have a continuance of at least a short exemption?


James Layton Ralston: That is a matter, first, of regulation. The regulations provide that the period of exemption shall be six months. There

Armed Forces-Farmers' Sons
is only one deferment, granted at one time, but there is nothing which makes it positive that another deferment will not be granted. Secondly, it is a matter for the board to decide whether or not the case is one of emergency, and of the kind my hon. friend has in mind.


Thomas Langton Church: What about those in the cities who want exemptions?


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Mr. Speaker, following up the questions already asked with reference to farmers' sons in training being given leave to help with spring seeding, I would ask the Minister of National Defence this question. Such cases as I have had come to my attention I have referred to the Deputy Minister of National Defence, who has been very considerate and suggested that if the men will make application to their commanding officer consideration will be given to such applications. But most of these men do not know that, and the result is that scores of letters on the subject are coming to almost every member representing a rural constituency. Would the minister give consideration to having a statement printed in army orders to the effect that where men are needed at home on the farm and can be spared, leave can be had by applying to the commanding officer?


James Layton Ralston: I would not want to
have a statement made in quite that way, but I will see if some statement can be prepared with regard to the procedure in cases of the kind. Very recently we have made a rule which I think will be made uniform, that where men are actually in the army-not just those who have been called up and have not yet actually reported-we are referring such cases of men actually in the army, at least in the early stages of their training, to these boards. We are asking the Minister of National War Services to request his boards to look into these cases so that they may be dealt with on a uniform basis, and not on the basis of what one commanding officer may think in one place and another may think in another. This will help to get a set of principles laid down with respect to these men being entitled to deferment if deferment seems to be required.


DEFERMENT OF SERVICE OF FOURTH SON FOR BUSINESS REASONS
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence which arises out of the question asked by the hon. member for Lincoln. A widow has three sons who have enlisted voluntarily for service in England and she wants to have a fourth son kept home for business reasons, but the tribunal ruled against

her. There should not be conscription in some homes and not in others. Are any instructions issued to the tribunals in these matters?


James Layton Ralston: If I understand my hon. friend
aright his question is: are any instructions issued with regard to business men?


Richard Burpee Hanson: To the
tribunals.


James Layton Ralston: That question is really one which ought to be referred to my colleague, the Minister of National War Services. No instructions are issued to tribunals by my department in that respect.


Thomas Langton Church: Can the Minister of
National War Services give me an answer to the question I.asked a few moments ago?


POSTPONEMENT FOR FIFTH SON
[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I should like to ask any of the war ministers or the Minister of National War Services if a man who has four sons who have enlisted voluntarily in the army can secure an indefinite postponement of training for the fifth son?
Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):: The matter is covered by the national war services regulations which are administered by divisional boards. It is within the discretion of the board to grant a postponement, but each postponement is confined to a limit of six months. There is nothing to prevent a board from granting either one or more extensions of such postponement.


SECOND VICTORY LOAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. BRUCE McNEVIN (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I note in this morning's Globe and Mail a report with regard to those Ontario municipalities which were first in reaching their allotments in connection with the victory loan. I have not the slightest desire in any way to detract from the splendid record of these municipalities. However, in order that the record may be clear, may I say that the village of Omemee and the township of Emily exceeded their objective of $65,000, by six and one-half per cent within fifteen minutes after the victory loan offices opened on the morning of Monday, February 16. I believe there should be a word of commendation for the

Privilege-Mr. Kinley
joint chairmen of these municipalities, Rev. R. M. Patterson of Omemee and Rev. Father McFadden of Downeyville. The canvassers Messrs. D. Weir, A. Carroll and A. McQuade are still going strong and have exceeded the sum of $100,000.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I believe that is not a question of privilege.
RETURNS FROM QUEBEC-MEGANTIC COUNTY On the orders of the day:


Mr. JOSEPH LAFONTAINE (Megantic-Frontenac):: I should like to read a telegram which I received yesterday, reading as follows:
We take pleasure in advising you that Megantie county has to-day obtained and passed its objective of one million and four hundred thousand dollars. We understand this is the first county in the province of Quebec to reach its objective.
A. S. Johnson,
J. A. For and,
Joint Chairmen, victory loan committee, county Megantie
PRIVILEGE-Mr. KINLEY


OTTAWA HOUSING CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to bring to the attention of the house an article appearing in to-day's issue of the Ottawa Morning Journal. It stands as the chief item of news on the front page, and refers to a statement made by his worship the Mayor of Ottawa. The news item is as follows:
Mayor Tells M.P's to Go Home Make Room for War Workers "Some of these M.P.'s who are wasting their time around Ottawa should go home so that their offices could be used by war workers," Mayor Lewis declared at Board of Control on Tuesday.
Then what appears to be the motive follows: Mr. Lewis made his remarks after the board had endorsed the stand taken by G. Russell Boucher, M.P. for Carleton county, in the House of Commons on Monday night for an upward revision of the $100,000 granted annually to the city in lieu of taxes.
Then the article goes on to say:
Controllers Geldert and Pickering agreed with Mayor Lewis that the government had created the serious housing situation in the capital and was doing nothing to relieve the shortage of accommodation.
May I bring to the attention of the Prime Minister certain press dispatches which indicate that in Washington, where there is a
similar condition, some departments of government are being moved to other cities. It might be a splendid idea, for instance, to remove the naval department to the coast.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: East coast.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: West coast.


John James Kinley: And the Department of Agriculture to Winnipeg. Then, with respect to the personal affront indicated in the article, may I point out that most members of parliament are proud of the national capital, and naturally we are chagrined by the discourteous remark of the chief magistrate of the city of Ottawa.


Mr. HOMUTH:: He knows only the Liberal members.


John James Kinley: Most of us would be busy at home. But that is one of the tests people usually apply before sending us here.
It seems to me that the criticisms about members of parliament are hard to understand, especially in war time. If a debate continues for a long time in the house, we are accused of wasting the country's time. On the other hand, if hon. members do not speak, it is said that they are dumb. So far as I am concerned, practical business is usually run in a harmonious and quiet manner. To my mind that is the most effective kind of business. But it seems that sections of the press and some people across the country want us to put on a show.


Mr. PINARD:: On a point of order, my hon. friend is complaining about the city of Ottawa.


John James Kinley: I have the floor.


Joseph Albert Pinard: Sit down, please. The hon. member says that he is speaking to a question of privilege. I am speaking to a point of order.


Georges Parent: The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley) has introduced a question of privilege concerning an item appearing in a newspaper. He has extended his observations as far as he should, in the circumstances.


John James Kinley: I should like to say just a word more, because this article is an affront to members of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Georges Parent: The hon. member should confine his remarks to the question of privilege.


John James Kinley: Most of the criticism of members of parliament seems to be by people who do not understand just what we do. Some seem to think that the whole performance of a member is spread upon Hansard.
Labour Conditions

That is contrary to the fact and contrary to responsible government. Hon. members, especially those supporting the government, do their work most effectively and use their influence before the legislation ever comes into the House of Commons.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John James Kinley: I subscribe to the sentiment expressed in the Scripture:
Should a wise man utter vain knowledge, and fill his belly with the east wind?


NATIONAL HEALTH
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYBON (Peel):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health. Would the minister care to comment on the prevalent rumour that the government proposes this session to introduce legislation designed to provide a national scheme of health insurance?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): The answer to the question is in the negative. However, there were certain discussions departmentally last June on the question of national health, as a result of which certain departmental proposals have been canvassed thoroughly with the Canadian medical association, the dental profession, the nursing association and the hospitals of Canada. On the outcome of this canvassing the departmental policy will be determined.


AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it proposed to convene at once the standing committee on agriculture and, if so, will an opportunity be afforded in that committee, or in a special committee, for a comprehensive consideration and exhaustive review of the more pressing problems facing the Canadian farmer at the moment?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: It is intended to have the committee on agriculture convene just as soon as possible and there are certain matters which I, as Minister of Agriculture, intend to refer to that committee. These do not necessarily include the matters referred to. If there is no other opportunity provided during the session, there is always opportunity when the estimates are

being discussed of obtaining whatever information can be given by the department with regard to different matters.


Gordon Graydon: I was wondering if the minister had in mind referring to the committee any of the problems which were raised in the submission of the Canadian federation of agriculture which met the Prime Minister and members of the government in January?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not given consideration to that, but I shall give consideration to it.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, of which I have given him notice. It arises from a telegram received this morning from Sudbury, which reads as follows:
Forest Emmerson, international representative, and Jack Wheleha-n, international organizer, have been brutally and viciously assaulted in union office. Organizers in hospital. Union office completely demolished. Thugs demanded list of union membership. We believe this direct reaction of government policy in Kirkland Lake strike. Incessant anti-union campaign conducted by Sudbury Star. A committee of Sudbury miners request this to the attention of our government.
A. K. Smith,
J. McCool,
W. Cavanough,
J. Navalkoski.
Has the minister any information in regard to this matter and, if so, ivould he please make a statement to the house?
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: My answer to the first question is no. My answer to the second question is that, as no doubt my hon. friend knows, the responsibility for the maintenance of law and order is primarily that of the municipalities and provincial governments.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice which arises out of a telegram similar to the one just read by the hon. member for North Battleford. One of the organizers who is now in hospital, due to the assault described in the telegram read by the hon. member, is a United States cititzen legally admitted to this country as a representative of organized labour. I should like to ask what protection the Royal Canadian Mounted Police gives to officials who are endeavouring to

Wheat
carry out instructions issued by the government as contained in order in council P.C. 2685. Can the minister give the house an assurance that there will be a thorough investigation into the complaint contained in the telegram read by the hon. member for North Battleford?
Hon. L. S. St. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): The only answer I could give to the hon. member would be similar to that given already by the Minister of Labour. The hon. member was good enough to address a letter to me containing a copy of the telegram, and I .made inquiries from the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He told me that he had no information and wished to point out that the responsibility for maintaining order there was upon the municipal police of Sudbury and the provincial police of Ontario.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice following the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. This is a very serious situation, and I do not think it should be passed over as lightly as it was by both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour. If labour causes any disturbance in any area-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put the question.


Angus MacInnis: Just a moment, now. Parliament cannot afford to ignore this matter. I am saying that if labour causes any disturbance in any area the government would very soon send in the mounted police, and I think that at the present moment the government should give every assurance that these people will be protected. What protection are trade unionists going to have in this matter?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The marriage is not so
happy after all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It seems
to be dissolved already.


Georges Parent: Order. I should like to point out that the practice is becoming prevalent of putting supplementary questions following original questions submitted to the ministry. That means almost a general debate on questions that have been put to the ministry, who have given an answer to the original question. Furthermore, in the asking of questions, expressions of opinion are being given and statements of fact made. These are not questions addressed to the ministry, and I would ask hon. members to remember that on questions put to the ministry on the orders of the day there can be no general debate, and supplementary questions should be prohibited.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have been very careful not to make speeches in asking questions, but we cannot afford to leave this matter to the gorillas who are at the present time running the province of Ontario.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order. While I have no brief for the premier of Ontario, and I do not think he particularly needs any defence, I submit that hon. members of this house ought to show respect for the premier of any province of the Dominion of Canada, and under the rules of the house, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macln-nis) had no right, I submit, to use the term he did with reference to Premier Hepburn, when he called him a gorilla. I think he ought to withdraw that remark.
I should like a ruling on my point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Georges Parent: I did not understand that the hon. member had asked for a ruling. An hon. member must take responsibility for any statement he makes with respect to somebody who is not a member of the house. If it were a member of the house it would be a different matter.	[DOT]


Georges Parent: With reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), citation 294 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms reads:
If a member should say nothing disrespectful to the house or the chair, or personally opprobrious to other members, or in violation of other rules of the house he may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals; and he is protected by his privilege from any action for libel, as well as from any other question or molestation.


LEGISLATION RESPECTING 1942 CROP-RECOMMENDATIONS OF POOL DELEGATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce two questions. This question follows one asked1 by the hon. member for Lake Centre. The farmers of the west are anxious to know just what will be required of them this spring, whether there is to be any reduction in seeding, and so on, and what is going to happen with respect to price and marketing. Would the minister inform the house, first, when he will be prepared to bring down legislation dealing with the price for the 1942 crop and its marketing? My second question is prompted by the statement of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburz (Mr. Kinley)
Hong Kong Casualties

that government members of the house do their best work, not on the floor of the house, but, consulting with the cabinet before they ever come into the house. I would ask what success the minister is having with the western Liberals, what suggestions he is getting from them, and what assistance in framing the wheat legislation and carrying out the recommendations of the pool delegation?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: In reply to the first question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, I wish to say that those advising the cabinet on matters of wheat and farm policy, and those members of the cabinet who are particularly responsible for policy along that line, and the cabinet generally, have been holding practically continuous meetings on this question for a long time. In the last few days, for instance, we spent all Saturday afternoon, Sunday afternoon, Monday and last night until twelve o'clock, considering this subject and endeavouring to arrive at unanimity on a question of such great importance to western Canada and Canada at large. Most sympathetic and anxious attention is being given to the problem, and I can assure the hon. member that a decision will be brought down at the earliest possible moment.
I do not think the hon. member really expects an answer to his second question.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think it would be very interesting to have one.


STANDING ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North):: Now that the speech from the throne is disposed of, I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the rule that prohibits members from reading their speeches will be enforced from now until the end of the session?


Georges Parent: The rules of the house are there and will have to be enforced.


HONG KONG
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, to-day the government has received the first official information from which any definite conclusion can be arrived at with respect to the number of casualties at Hong Kong. A message has been received from the Canadian Minister at Buenos Aires

transmitting a message which was received from the Argentine embassy-I take it to be the Argentine embassy at Tokyo. The message is very meagre. It gives figures, and that is all. The statement is that "Japanese government officially communicate figures for prisoners of war Hong Kong, Canadians, 1,689." Hon. members will remember that the number who embarked was 1,985. That means, on the basis of those figures, I most sincerely regret to say, that, at least without further information, 296 would be regarded as either dead or missing.


INQUIRY AS TO RATIONING AND CONSERVATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):: Will the Minister of Finance inform the house whether the government's policy with respect to the conservation of foreign exchange has anything to do with the rationing of sugar?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, the reason for the rationing of sugar was the action taken by the United States and the fact that there was a possible prospective shortage of sugar. It had no relation whatever to the conservation of exchange.



PLEBISCITE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon.' N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10, respecting the taking of a plebiscite in every electoral district in Canada and the taking of the votes of such plebiscite of Canadian service voters stationed within and without Canada.
Right .Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	The bill which is now
before the house for its second reading is, as the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty), who introduced it, announced a few days ago, in the nature of a general plebiscite act; that is to say, it makes provision for the taking of a plebiscite which ordinarily would be as applicable to a 'plebiscite on one subject as another. The intention, however, is that the bill should be for one plebiscite only, and that the plebiscite when taken, shall have reference to only one question. That question has already been made clear to the members of the house and the public, but I will take occasion at once to bring again to the attention of the house its exact wording.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
It will be recalled that in the speech from the throne it was announced, as part of government policy, that a plebiscite would be taken on the question of removing a certain limitation which now is imposed upon the government with respect to the enlistment of men for service overseas. The question which it is intended to ask the public in the plebiscite is the following:
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?
As I said, at the time of speaking on the address, the question is very simple in its language and meaning and is a straightforward one. I do not think it is capable of any more than one interpretation. It asks the people of Canada whether they are willing to release the government from a certain limitation which arises out of past commitments with respect to the enlistment of men for overseas. If the answer is in the affirmative it will mean that the government, according to the opinion expressed by the people, has been released from commitments that have been made; if it is in the negative it will mean that the majority of the electors are of the opinion that the government should continue to be governed by the commitment that was made at the time of the last general election and on previous occasions, and on subsequent occasions as well.
The subject of the plebiscite has been debated at such length that it would perhaps seem unnecessary to discuss it further. My purpose this afternoon is not so much to attempt to add to what has been said but rather, if possible, to clear away some of the confusion that has arisen out of the discussion that has already taken place.
To that end, let me first of all make quite clear the purpose of the plebiscite. As I have said, the purpose is to give the government- I put it in general terms-a perfectly free hand to deal with all matters affecting the war in the manner which, in its judgment, is most in the national interest.
There is a distinction to be made between the legal powers which the government has and the moral authority which it possesses. With respect to the legal power, there can be no question whatever that this parliament has full power to do whatever it may decide to do with respect to the management of matters pertaining to the war. The one limitation which exists on that power so far as this parliament is concerned is not a legal limitation but a moral obligation.
There may be some who take the view that, in matters of government, in time of war, moral obligations count for nothing. May I
say that, in my opinion, moral obligations, especially where they relate to a specific measure, a concrete matter related to the war on which the government of the country itself has given a pledge, are as binding as any obligation could possibly be. To say that the parliament of Canada, which derives its powers from the people, after a solemn pledge has been given to the people on a matter which is of deep concern to them, is released from this pledge the moment the people have elected it, is simply for parliament itself to create a precedent which would be subversive of parliamentary institutions.
Let me ask first of all how this limitation arose. It arose out of a situation that existed several years ago in this country. That of itself is significant as indicating how long the public memory is with respect to matters which affect the people themselves. I would pause here to say that the public memory is going to be long in the matter of how this parliament views its moral obligations as well as its legal powers. It is because I feel very strongly that the people of Canada will wish to have their present and their future governments pay the utmost regard to pledges given to the electorate that I feel it all important that this matter of past commitments should be presented to the people in the form of a question which will secure their opinion, before the time comes when the government may be called upon to consider whether further action than it is empowered now to take, should or should not become necessary later on.
During the last war the question of conscription came up near the end of the conflict. I will not go into what took place at the time except to remind hon. members of the fact that nothing in the political history of Canada since Confederation has given rise to so much bitterness, so much ill feeling, or has done so much in the way of dividing the peoples of this country, setting one lot against another, as did the conscription issue at that particular time, and the manner in which it was dealt with by the government of the day. Now it was because of that fact that, when the government of the day saw looming on the horizon the possibility of a future war, it was recognized that this question of conscription would present itself immediately. It was of importance therefore to national unity that a position should be taken and stated by the administration which would prevent any of the kind of controversy and bitterness which had previously arisen, and would maintain the unity of the country at a time when the situation might be most critical. Having that in mind, the government of the day-this was before the present war began-and, not merely
[Stage Direction]
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
the government, but members of the opposition and members of all parties in this House of Commons, expressed very frankly and emphatically on the floor of this parliament their view that, if another war came, and it became necessary to consider the sending of men overseas to participate in what was then thought might be a war confined to Europe alone, the only method that would be resorted to for overseas would be the one of voluntary enlistment-there would be no compulsion, no conscription. I think I am right when I say that that was the view which was generally expressed before the war by all parties in this house. It was expressed for the one reason that it was felt that it was absolutely necessary to maintain, as far as that might be possible, the unity of the country at a time when it might be faced with the great crisis of war.
But let me go a step further. When the war came in Europe and this parliament met to decide whether Canada would enter the war or not, a declaration was made by the government of the day that, if Canada did enter the war, there would not be compulsory service for overseas, but that service for overseas would be by voluntary enlistment. That declaration was made when this house was deciding whether Canada should go into the war or not. And that statement was made not by the government to hon. members of parliament only but by members of parliament of all parties speaking to the people of the country, and assuring them of the position that would be taken. I submit that no more solemn undertaking could possibly have been given to the people of Canada than that which was given to them by their representatives in the House of Commons at that time.
What was the effect of giving that declaration? The effect was that, when Canada decided to go into the war, this House of Commons, I think to a man-there may have been an exception, but practically to a man -decided that Canada should participate in the war at Britain's side. We were told beforehand that it was all nonsense to ask parliament to decide whether the country should ,go into the war, we were told-I am speaking now of what the government was told by its opponents-that the government should decide that question; not leave it to the people's representatives in parliament to decide what they should do. I took the position very strongly at the time that parliament would decide, and I suppose no one received more abuse and criticism from certain sections of the press and public speakers than I did for taking that stand; I took the position that Canada would not go automatically into war (Mr. Mackenzie King.]
just because one part of the empire might be at war, but that we would decide on the merits of the case as the situation was known, and would take our own action by the vote of the people's representatives in parliament.
Having given the assurance that conscription would not be resorted to in connection with enlistment for service overseas, this parliament voted practically unanimously to enter the war. But that was not the only occasion on which the position was asserted.
WTe also had a general election in 1940 to decide what administration was to carry on the affairs of the country during the period of war. At that time from one end of Canada to the other members of the government renewed to the people of Canada the undertaking which I have just cited, as the one which would be followed in time of war. Hon. members opposite have been referring to this pledge or commitment as "Mr. King's commitment", "to relieve Mr. King of his commitment", "relieve the Prime Minister of his commitment". May I say that the commitment was not a commitment of myself alone. To begin with, it was a commitment on the part of all my colleagues in the government, it had been made in this House of Commons in the presence of every one of them; it was a commitment made in the name of the entire party which supports the administration; and, may I say, a commitment quite as broad, quite as emphatic, was made by the leader of the opposition of that day on behalf of the Conservative party in this house. The very same commitment was made on behalf of the Conservative party of Canada in this House of Commons by its then leader, it was made also on the platforms of this country by its leader in terms just as emphatic as anyone on this side of the house could have made it.
So that there will be no misunderstanding of this, let me give hon. members exactly what the then leader of the Conservative party, and of the official opposition, Doctor Manion said, speaking in this House of Commons on March 30, 1939; as reported in Hansard at page 2440:
In the last war the conscription of men to go to the front caused violent racial antagonisms, much disharmony, bitterness and misunderstanding-conditions from which as yet we have not wholly recovered, and on top of that I believe I am expressing the opinion of authorities when I say that it was of no real military value so far as the empire was concerned.
He stated that as far as he could ascertain only some ten thousand men at the most got into the fighting line as a result of conscription. Then he went on to say:
The policy that I suggest is the one which I gave three days ago in an interview: first.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
that there should be no conscription of Canadians to serve outside the borders of Canada; second, that we should have full cooperation with the British empire short of the conscription of men to serve outside our borders.
That was the statement Doctor Manion as leader of the official opposition, and of the Conservative party, made to parliament. But he also made similar statements on the public platforms during the campaign of 1940. Here is what Doctor Manion said at Quebec, speaking in the name of his party:
I stated on March 30, 1939, just about a year ago, in the House of Commons, that I was opposed to conscription because of its failure in the last war, and because it had stirred up misunderstanding and strife in our country, when the duty of our public men is to hold this country together, rather than to break it up. I have not waited until I came to the province of Quebec to make this statement. I made it a month ago at Brockville in the opening speech of my campaign. I have made it more than twenty times, since then, in almost every speech which I have delivered as far west as Victoria, B.C. Thus I have set forth my attitude in five provinces of Canada before coming to Quebec, and I state here again to-night that I am against conscription and that a national government such as I propose will not put in conscription.
Now there is the statement made by the leader of the Conservative party who was asking the country to support his party-not, it is true, under its old name of the Conservative party, but under the new name which it was taking for the purpose of the election -national government party-a pledge that if a national government party were returned they would not put conscription into force.
Now let me assume for a moment that a national government party had been returned. I ask my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, if he had been a member of that government, or Doctor Manion's successor in that government, whether he would have felt that he had no obligation whatever to see that that particular undertaking was lived up to? Would he have taken the position that although he had been returned to power on a specific pledge solemnly given to the people in the different provinces at a time of war, in a general election when they were being asked to return his administration rather than another, that having been returned to this parliament would he then immediately thereafter have turned around and said, "I recognize no obligation in this matter to those who elected the administration, I am going to proceed without any reference to the people at all?" I do not believe my hon. friend would have done that, and I am surprised that he criticizes me for wishing to have the people pass on this question in order that the government may be freed of all
limitations upon its authority to act, except its responsibility to parliament, and through parliament to the people.
It is true that my hon. friend has said to me, "I think what you should have done was come to the House of Commons and ask the house to release you, and I am sure the house would have done so readily." But may I say to my hon. friend that my undertaking in this matter, as Prime Minister of the country, was not given to this House of Commons; it was given to the people of Canada. It was given, just as the pledge of his leader of that day was given, not to the House of Commons but to the people. It is true that a statement to the same effect was made to the house before the recent general elections, and before the war, but it was not a statement to the members of the house so much as a statement of what we and our parties and followers would do if we were faced with a situation which demanded the question being decided one way or the other. The pledge was given later direct to the people, to the electorate themselves; it was a pledge made between the leaders of two great political parties in Canada and the electorate of this country in regard to the most solemn question that could have been put before them at that particular time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I see it either we are going to destroy the faith of the people of Canada in their public men and in the responsibility of parliament to the people themselves, if we ignore these pledges, or we are going to maintain that faith by making it perfectly clear to the people that we regard such power as we have as coming from the people themselves and that we intend to be ever mindful of this, and that if we have given a solemn pledge to them we intend to carry out that pledge. If, after situations have arisen which did not exist at the time a pledge was made, we believe in their own interests we should be released from that pledge and we take the necessary steps to that end, by consulting the people first, then I say we are helping to keep the faith of the people in their public men and in their parliament.
That is why to my mind this question is fundamental. It goes to the very roots of government itself, the very source from which power is derived by a parliament. Has my hon. friend any authority other than that which comes from the people? Have I any power except that which comes from the people? Is that power changed the moment I get into parliament? Being returned by the votes of the people themselves, I have constantly to keep in mind, as I think every
826	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
member of parliament must, that obligation, which is an abiding obligation with respect to membership in any House of Commons worthy of the name.
Well, now, that being the purpose of the plebiscite, let me state the present position. The position is that the government has full power with respect to everything, excepting one thing; and that one thing is that commitment, that obligation, with respect to the enlisting of men for overseas service. There the government is not free. You may ask why the government should come forward at the present time and ask to be made free. First of all may I make it clear that it is not because of any situation that exists at the moment. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has made it perfectly clear that with respect to voluntary enlistment we are obtaining men for overseas service at the present time as rapidly as we can train them. For our programme this year, and up to March, 1943, there is an honest belief on the part of the government that we will be able to get the men by voluntary enlistment for service overseas, and will not have to resort to conscription. But no one can say how long this war is going to last. No one can say what particular turn it is going to take. None of us knows what the conditions are going to be a few months hence, or several months hence, or a year or two hence. What we all know is this, that every month of this war has made it apparent to every member of this House of Commons, and I think should have made it apparent to every citizen of Canada, that a government cannot possess too much in the way of freedom to take the course that may be demanded in the national interest at a time like the present. It is because of this we want to have perfect freedom of action as an administration, to have all the right to do what is in the public interest at the time the situation may demand it, and we feel we ought to be given this freedom as quickly as possible. The reason we want it, as I have stated already, is to be free to act in the manner which will best serve the interests of the people of Canada; the manner that will make Canada's wTar effort the most effective. That is the sole reason, and that is all that is involved in this plebiscite. Hon. members have been talking about conscription, about no conscription and the like. That is not the issue in this plebiscite. This is the issue: Is the government of Canada, in time of war, to have freedom to take whatever action it thinks most advisable with respect to the furtherance of Canada's war effort?
That is the only question, and I am amazed that any person who has to do with the 
moulding of public opinion in Canada, with the making of its laws or who has to do with any political institution, could for a moment hesitate to give immediate support to a request of the kind. What argument can be urged against giving to a ministry the right to have full power in time of war to deal with any question, just as in time of peace it has full power to deal with any question that may come before it?
But there is another point I wish to bring out in connection with the special need for the plebiscite at this time, and it is this. First of all, the government is being put in an entirely wrong position before the people of this country and before the world just because we have not that full power. I ask hon. members to reflect upon that. I have said that the public has a long memory. Other countries, other nations have memories as well. To-day we are in a great partnership with a large number of nations, who are helping us as we are helping them. It is important that our position should be perfectly clear. It is being represented to the people of this country, and it is being represented to the people of Britain, the people of the United States and the people of all the allied nations, that this government is not seeking to have an all out war effort. Why? Because it is precluded, under a commitment which it has given and to which it is adhering, from resorting to conscription for men for service overseas. In other words the all out war effort is being identified with that one single thing, namely the commitment against having conscription for overseas service whether that should ever become necessary or not.
That is putting the government in an entirely false position. Let us take the position as it is to-day. Would anyone say that we have not been working as hard as we possibly could toward a full out war effort? Will anyone say that at the present time, if we had that full power, we would be resorting to conscription for overseas service? No one will say that, because it is not necessary, has not become necessary, and may never become necessary. Nevertheless as long as that commitment is there we are being represented to the people of our own and other countries as a government unwilling to go the lengths other countries are willing to go, even should necessity for so doing become clearly manifest. That is a false position and a very wrong one in which to have the government placed.
Moreover, the present position in regard to that one commitment places the parliament of Canada, as well, in a false position. Suppose the question of conscription were urgent at this time, and we wished to discuss it on the

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
floor of the house, could we have a free discussion of conscription on its merits, with that commitment binding many hon. members at the present time? The very minute the subject were brought up, one hon. member after another, if it suited his purpose, would rise in his place in the house and say, "I cannot discuss this question, because the government is committed not even to raise it." So long as that commitment is there, no matter how the war may develop, there can be no discussion of the merits of the question of compulsory service for overseas. I say that that is putting parliament in a wrong position before the people of Canada.
I have not any fear, personally, that parliament will not take the right course with respect to any phase of the war effort, once it is debated on its merits. I have faith in the judgment of the House of Commons to do what is the wisest and the right thing, having respect to the merits of the case. But in existing circumstances I do not want to see this parliament placed longer in a position where it cannot even discuss the merits of an all-important question with regard to Canada's war effort. And so I say to those who are taking exception to the course which the government is pursuing that they are only helping to place their own parliament in a position in which no parliament should be placed in a time of war.
I would say further, that not only is it putting the government in a false position to have its hands tied at this time, in the manner indicated, and that it is putting parliament in a false position, but it is also putting Canada in a false position, before all countries of the world, including her allies in the war.
We have seen in communciations which have appeared from time to time, and we have heard in the public addresses, what has been said recently about the position of the United States vis-a-vis Canada. Notwithstanding the fact that for over two years Canada has been sending thousands of men across the seas, we have in the last month or two heard it said that Canada's war effort is not as fine as that of the United States, and why, forsooth, not that they have sent large numbers of men overseas, not that the United States have thousands of men, men who have been in the war for two years, but solely because there are alleged limitations on our war effort since we are not able to send a man overseas under compulsion, regardless of the fact that up to the present we have been and may continue to be able to get all we require under the voluntary system.
I do not believe Canada should be placed in that false position. We should not be placed in that position before the United States. We should not be placed in that false position
before Great Britain and, not only before our allies, but also before the enemy. It must be remembered that, as some are only too anxious to do in this country, the enemy will construe this commitment as a limitation on the war effort of Canada.
I say on these grounds, Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly the time has come when that limitation should be removed, and when the government should be given the utmost freedom to deal with any phase of the war effort as it thinks best subject always to its responsibility to parliament.
I have said that this is not a question of conscription. Hon. members opposite have been saying, "Why do you not have a referendum, and refer the question of conscription itself to the people?"
Richard Burpee Hanson: Who said that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You never said
that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am delighted to hear it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You never have said it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who said it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I can show my hon. friend several papers supporting his opposition-*


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, well-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
this, then-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not
say it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I understand that my hon. friend now says they are not in favour of a referendum.
Mr. MacNI'COL: They never said anything else.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What are they in favour of, then? They are in favour simply of calling parliament and enforcing conscription without reference to the people, either by plebiscite or referendum 1 There we have the difference between the two parties. Notwithstanding their position in the House of Commons, and the solemn undertaking given by their leader at the time of the last general election-which they did not denounce, but which they supported- they say to the people of Canada to-day, "We
S28	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
will not give you even a referendum. We will not give you a plebiscite; but we will take it into our own hands to do the very thing which our leader said he would not do, or we would not do if our party were returned to power."


Mr. STIRLING:: On a question of privilege, may I interrupt the Prime Minister? I have stated in the house this session that the course I consider should be adopted by the government is that of submitting a resolution to the elected1 members of the House of Commons as to wdiether they should be freed from the commitments under which they placed themselves.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In other words, if I understand my hon. friend correctly he suggests that we ought to decide among ourselves, without any reference to the people at ail.


Grote Stirling: The 245 representatives of the people, elected at an election at which this w'as not an issue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And that is w'here I entirely disagree with my hon. friend. If it was not an issue it was because the leaders of all parties took similar positions, and the position so adopted was that there would be no question of conscription. But that makes the obligation all the greater on every hon. member sitting in the house to see that, before that question is so much as discussed, he should be released from any commitment which may have been made.
In reference to whether the plebiscite is to be in reality a referendum, there is a question which is being asked now which changes the plebiscite into a referendum- and I believe my hon. friend asked this question only a day or two ago-it is, "What are you going to do if the decision is such-and-such?" He wishes me to say that I am going to do so-and-so. If I were to give him an undertaking at this time, and that undertaking is before the people when the question is put before them, is that not a referendum? That is, I commit myself to one course or to the other, and the people then are being asked to decide whether the government should take it or not. In other words I throw on the people of this country the onus of making a political and military decision, when the only body by which such decision should be taken on a question of this kind is the government which is responsible for such decision, advised by its military advisers, and taking all other relevant facts into consideration and debating its decisions on the floor of parliament, thereby making itself responsible to parliament for the decisions it makes.
[DOT]"Mr. Mackenzie King.]
That brings me to the question of evading responsibility. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) used some language the other day to which I thought I might raise objection when he spoke. I decided, however, to refer to it later on. He described as a subterfuge the course the government is taking. I believe the term "subterfuge" as applied to government policy in a matter of this kind is one which you, Mr. Speaker, might properly have ruled out of order.
He also said the government lacked courage, and stated later in his remarks that the course we were adopting was an evasive one. Let us see how far it has been evasive. What are we doing in the matter of responsible government? With respect to responsible government, at the present time we have not full powers. Our powers are limited. We cannot have fully responsible government until there are no limitations upon our powers. What we are asking the people in this plebiscite is to give us perfect freedom, to give us full responsibility. We are not asking the people to relieve us of responsibility, we are not asking the people to make a decision for us, we are asking them to give us full responsibility. We will take it and we will exercise it in the light of our responsibility to their representatives in the House of Commons. Where is the evasion of responsible government in that?
Let me go back to the course my hon. friends propose to adopt, if I understand them aright. They say, "ignore the people; we are here now, we will decide this thing in this House of Commons without reference to the people at all". Well, I say that that is irresponsible government. Because we are here with a mandate which the people have given us, which is full in all particulars but one. They say with regard to that one particular, "we will ignore it altogether, we will pay no attention to it one way or another". Talk about being courageous, I do not see anything courageous about that. Courage comes when you face the people, not when you run away from them. That runaway course is the one my hon. friends opposite have been advocating right along.
WThen this government decided during the course of the war that it was going to hold to the constitution of this country by appealing to the people before the end of a five-year term to elect a new House of Commons, we were told we were doing the wrong thing, that we ought to stay here, that we ought to extend our term and theirs as members at tl- same time. "Don't face the people, that is wrong." I think the people showed that they were not ready to give much support to those who were not prepared to trust them

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
but who wanted to have power without recognizing the source from which political power comes. I hope I have made it clear that the government is not seeking to evade any responsibility. It wants full responsibility. When it has that responsibility, it will come here, not sheltering behind commitments, but with full authority to inform this house of the course it feels should be taken. It will stand or fall by the decision which it makes.
My hon. friend has said that the taking of this plebiscite means that it will delay matters in a time of war. What is it going to delay? Is it going to delay the production of munitions or equipment of war, or of ships? Is it going to delay the sending of airmen overseas? Is it going to delay the enlistment of men in the navy? Is it going to delay the enlistment of men in the army, either for service in Canada or overseas? I say it is not, not by one minute. More men are offering themselves for training to-day than the administration is able to train, and that will be so for some time to come. Is it delaying the production of food? Is it delaying contributions to the war loan? Some people recently said they ought to cut out contributions altogether because the government was seeking to recognize its obligations to the people. There is no delay anywhere. But there is a pause sufficiently long to allow the people to express their own views with respect to the future freedom of action that the government of this country should have the right to take.
Something has been said about the cost. I assume that it will cost sometlhing to take the plebiscite and I regret that it will be as long as it will 'be before the vote itself can be taken. But we are spending a good many billions of dollars at the present time and those billions of dollars are coming from the people. When this house undertakes to put through estimates amounting to something like three billion dollars in a year, I think the people of this country will be relieved to know that the government submitting those estimates -wants to be perfectly sure of their confidence in everything that it does; that it is prepared to trust them by going before them for increased powers when it feels that these increased powers are necessary in the public interest. I do not think that the plebiscite should cost very much. I believe that many of those who will serve as enumerators or *who will .perform other duties in connection with the taking of the plebiscite will be patriotic enough to realize that in this time of war this is one method whereby they can render a war service that will be a real contribution to the country at the present time. I should be surprised if many of them do not return to the public treasury the small amounts
that will be paid to them for the discharge of their important duties. I do not think the additional amount that will be required will be very great.
The taking of this plebiscite will not be using up war materials except .perhaps the paper that will be necessary for the instructions, the ballots and the like. That is the only material that I can see that is going to be used. Such other incidental expenses as may be necessary will I hope be met to a considerable extent in the way I have indicated. May I say that I feel very strongly that as this expense is one which the government is asking the people to incur at this time in the people's own interest, the people themselves will be quite willing that it should be incurred.
The last day upon which we discussed this question my hon. friend said that he was going to ask his party to vote "yes" on the plebiscite, that he was going to ask the country to vote "yes." Why did he not do that during the debate on the address? Why did he not come out when we were debating the address and say that he thought that every good Conservative in this country ought to support the government's proposal for a plebiscite? There is only one reason I can think of, and that is the one that was in the minds of newspaper editors, public speakers and others who came out so violently against the suggestion made in the speech from the throne. Four by-elections were due in this country and these patriotic gentlemen were going to have an issue at all costs. They were going to make an issue of something that had created all sorts of division in this country before. They were going to do this notwithstanding that it was war time and notwithstanding the fact that this government needed the services of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour perhaps as they had never been needed before since the war commenced. They were prepared to create this issue, they were determined to have these by-elections carried on in the manner of elections of past years when the question of conscription was the most controversial thing which had been raised in the history of Canada.
Where it suited them in Welland, and where they thought it was going to suit them in Toronto, the ground was put forward that the people were for conscription but that the present administration was opposed to conscription. Their candidate came out for conscription first and foremost. If we are going to judge from what took place, it is pretty clear that so far as Welland and Toronto are concerned, the people were in favour of the plebiscite.


Mr. MacNICOL:: There was no vote in Toronto.
830	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
t Mr. MACKENZIE KING: York South. The vote may not have been in Toronto, but most of the ammunition came from there. Quite the opposite campaign was waged against the government in another province in Canada. I have no complaint to make about the results. I think that so far as they signify anything with reference to the plebiscite itself, it is that so far as it has been possible for the people to speak on this matter we have had an expression favourable to our consulting them on this particular question.
During these campaigns every effort was made to becloud the war record of the government. That is one of the reasons this issue was raised. In every possible way it was sought to confuse the public mind rather than to clear it with respect to the issues themselves and with respect to the government's record in prosecuting the war. As I have said, the outcome has shown already the unwisdom of the course which was followed, by the government's opponents, the unwisdom of those tactics and the wisdom of the course which the government itself is taking at this time.
My hon. friend the other day asked me a number of questions with respect to the plebiscite. He said that he would like to know before the question was put to the people w'hat the government was going to do in certain eventualities. Let me answer the question first of all in a broad way. The government is asking the people for a free hand in order that it may do in the circumstances as they ma3' arise what is most in the interests of the people of Canada. We wish to make Canada's war effort as effective as it can possibly be made. What we shall do at any particular time will depend upon the course which we think at that time is necessary and advisable and most effective in Canada's war effort. That decision is not going to be made in the light of any one factor. It is going to be made in the light of all conditions as they exist and as they are known to the government at the time that it has to assume responsibility for any policy or any change of policy which it may deem advisable. Surely that is the only right position for an administration to have or to take.
My hon. friend says: Will you tell us, first of all, if the plebiscite is decided in the affirmative by a large majority, what you are doing to do? Then he asks: If it is decided by a very small majority, what are you going to do? Then next: If it is decided by say only thirty-seven per cent in favour, and the rest against, what are you going to do? Then I think his next query was: If several provinces are in favour, and one or two others are not in favour, what are you going to do? I 
think he had one other question: Yes, it was, if the vote is indecisive, what are you going to do?
Why did he not go on and ask several other questions? Why did he confine himself to thirty-seven per cent? Why did he not ask what we would do if only twenty-seven per cent or thirty-eight or thirty-nine per cent was in favour?
He submits to me a sort of political catechism and expects me to give an answer to every hypothetical question he can imagine. Why did he not ask: What are you going to do if the United States take such and such a course? Why did he not ask several other hypothetical questions? He asked enough to reveal his intention to embarrass the government, but I can assure him that he has not embarrassed me nor the administration in the least. The government will do in this matter as it has done, and as he himself would be doing to-day if he were in office. He would be saying this same thing to me if asked a similar question. The government will make its policy known at the time when it is essential to have it made known-and not before. All government policies should be made known at the right and proper time. This is not the right or the proper time to make any pronouncement as to what the government is going to do as a result of this vote, other than the pronouncement which I have already made, and made very clearly, that the government is going to do the thing that it believes is going to further to the uttermost Canada's war effort, all circumstances considered. May I say that when I say "all circumstances considered" I have in mind the conditions as they may exist in respect to the war in different theatres and the conditions that may exist in Canada itself.
We have heard on the floor of the house within the last few days suggestions made that we should send more men overseas to Britain. We have had other suggestions made that we should not send more men over to Britain but send men over to the Orient in larger numbers.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Secret session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who said:
"secret session"? My hon. friend may be giving away some facts which I can assure him, if he thinks they are secret, he should not give away. But what I am stating now has been said here in this parliament in open session since parliament opened. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) suggested that we should send an expedition to Australia. I have understood the hon. member who has just interrupted is in

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
favour of sending more men to Britain. We also have had suggested in this house in open session that we ought to be keeping our men here and not sending them across either the Atlantic or the Pacific. May I recall the words my hon. friend the leader of the opposition addressed to me when he was waxing eloquent over this matter? He said: With the enemy knocking at our very doors you are going to take this plebiscite. If the enemy is knocking at our very doors, I do not think there will be very much demand in this country to send men overseas. We shall in that eventuality be keeping all the men we can put at our very doors where they can do the most effective work. I believe myself that the most effective way to defeat the enemy is to defeat him away from our shores altogether so that he will never get near our shores. But I do say that if he ever comes battering on the shores of this country, public feeling in this country will be so strong that any government, no matter what its view might be, will -have to think twice before it adds to the number of men that are being sent out of Canada.
I mention these things because they help to illustrate how impossible it is for the government to give a decision here and now as to what it is going to do next September or October or November or December, or in 1943 or 1944. We cannot make any decision at the present time as to what we are going to do then, and we would be foolish if we led anyone to believe that we were going to be governed other than by all the facts that exist at the time this matter is under further consideration.
There is another matter. My hon. friend says that I ought to tell the people this and that. And yet he-perhaps not he, but several of those who sit around him hope that I shall not be here very long. The one thing they wish above everything else is that I should be out of office instead of in office.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thought the right hon. gentleman was going to say that we wished him dead. We have never gone that far.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend and I are too good friends for that. I say that, politically speaking, most hon. gentlemen immediately opposite would be thoroughly pleased, and their friends as well, if I were not in the position I am in at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there anything wrong about that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The only thing that is wrong about it is that they won't tell us who they are going to put in my place.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Thirty-eight Barkises, and they are all willing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition ought to have a very kindly feeling towards myself on that particular question because he has seen efforts that have been made to have someone else take his place. They have not succeeded, and may I say to him sincerely that I think the country is much better off having him there to-day. I can tell him I am saying that not only on behalf of my own supporters but on behalf of a good many of his supporters as well. But I wish to make this clear. The present government, as I think my colleagues will bear me out, is not a one-man government. We are not imitating dictators; we are trying to remain the government of a democracy and to get as far away from dictatorship as we possibly can in all our actions. Any decision that is going to be made with respect to what will be done in a matter of future policy is not going to be made by any one menfber of the government or any two members; it is going to be made by all the members that sit in the government. Every member in the government will have his voice in the shaping of policy, and those who cannot accept the policy of the majority will find it convenient to retire, and a government will remain in office which will stand as one with respect to policy.
I could not if I wished, therefore, undertake to tell the people of Canada to-day what was going to be done some months hence by a government of which I might not be a member, or with respect to which different views might be entertained from those which I have, or which other of the present members of the administration may have. These facts are elementary. They should appeal to everyone who has to do with parliamentary procedure and government. Perhaps I can give an illustration that will help to make clear the wisdom of not indicating at the present time just what decision may be reached a little later on in certain circumstances.
In order to carry on war men are necessary, money is necessary. Both have to be raised, one in large numbers and the other in large quantities. With respect to the men that are being raised at the present time we have two methods. They are not ends in themselves but methods, and we are taking the method which we believe will be most effective and serviceable to Canada's war effort when we resort to the one or to the other. We have two methods of raising men for the army. Some of them are raised by compulsion; they are serving within the territorial limits of
832	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
Canada. Others are being raised by voluntary enlistment,'some of them also are serving in Canada. But all that are going overseas are being raised by the voluntary enlistment system, which has proved effective up to the present.
Now with respect to the raising of money, we are using the same two methods. We are raising money by compulsion, under taxation in its different forms; and we are raising money voluntarily by the loan system which is in progress at the present, time, and which the people of the country are supporting splendidly, and, I believe, will continue to support. Supposing my hon. friend were to ask me, "What are you going to do if the voluntary system fails in the matter of the loan? Will you tell the people that now?" Could I tell them that? Would it be wise to tell them that? But a decision will have to be made if the voluntary system in the matter of loans should fail to produce the results which it is necessary should be produced in the securing of an amount of money requisite for the purpose. Under such circumstances I think probably there would be resort to the conscription of wealth. I do not see any other alternative than for 'the government just to come along and take the wealth that exists, if the required sums cannot be raised voluntarily.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about the ideas of our friends down below- to make money by the bank?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That might not be found sufficiently effective. However, I do not wish to be diverted from what I am saying because it is wholly pertinent. I wish to make it very clear, because through the next couple of weeks or months the people will be saying, "Why did not the Prime Minister state his position as to what he would do if this plebiscite did not carry or if it did carry?" I wish to have this parallel kept in mind. What the government is going to do when the voluntary method fails in the matter of loans it will decide when the time comes; and it will do exactly the same thing as respects the matter of raising men. When we find that we cannot raise the required numbers of men for enlistment overseas by the voluntary method, and it is absolutely necessary to raise more men by other methods, then we will make our decision, present it to parliament and have it discussed on its merits. I am putting this forward now so that the public may understand quite clearly why it is impossible to give any immediate decision. And may I say this: I think the 
people of the country will see to it that both things are linked pretty closely together if one or the other becomes necessary.
My hon. friend says we are asking that the government be given a blank cheque. What does he mean by a blank cheque? A blank cheque for what? Not a blank cheque to ignore parliament. The blank cheque is simply the cheque the government has with respect to all matters excepting this one thing, of the choice of method for raising men for overseas service. With respect to all other matters the government to-day has full power and authority. That may be the blank cheque If that is what he means by blank cheque, I say, let us have a complete blank cheque so that we can take whatever action we wish. But when he speaks of a blank cheque, what he is trying to infer is that the government is seeking to exercise some power independent of parliament. That is not what we are asking for in this plebiscite. We are simply asking to be given freedom to make an untrammelled decision and to come to parliament with that decision. Let my hon. friends keep that in mind, that before any measure can be passed in this parliament, no matter what it relates to, conscription or anything else, it has to get the support of a majority of the House of Commons, and the ministry has to consider very carefully every aspect of the question which will bear upon the situation in presenting any measure to parliament.
As to the conduct of the campaign, my hon. friend asked a word or two about that. I should hope that the campaign would be made an educational campaign which would help to impress upon the people the necessity of giving the government full power in time of war. I think it can be made that. My hon. friend and I are to-day agreed that the government ought to have this power and we are agreed for the same reason. And the leaders of the other parties are agreed. I know that the Social Credit party feels that something ought to be added, but at least I take it that they are not unwilling to give the government the freedom that is needed to act in such a way as will best serve the interests of the country. So that we are all pretty well agreed in this parliament that the government ought to have that power. But could we do anything better to serve the national interests of this country than, as representatives of all shades of opinion in this House of Commons, to go out to the people of Canada and tell them that this is a time when the war situation is so serious that no power should be withheld from the government in the administration of public affairs? I hope that course will be taken.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
My hon. friend asks me what the government's attitude on the plebiscite will be. 1 took care to state that at the time I was speaking on the address, and I should like to read this one word in conclusion, from page 51 of Hansard of January 26:
In the presentation of the plebiscite to the electorate the desire of the administration to possess complete freedom of action will of course, receive the vigorous and wholehearted support of all members of the government. It will, I hope receive the support of every member of parliament, and will, I believe, receive the support of the Canadian people.
There is nothing half-hearted about our purpose in this. I do not believe it will be possible for an administration to carry on, in a time like this, with the sense it ought to have of complete authority without being given complete power. It should not be put perpetually in a false position just because of some obligation necessary at an earlier time, but which, as I explained in the debate on the address, is having an effect quite different from that originally intended in its relation to the state of affairs that exists at the present moment. I have not gone into that this afternoon, because I spoke on it at length in the debate on the address. The reasons which to-day would actuate the people in respect of the powers being given to a government when we have war all over the world, on every continent and every ocean, are surely vastly different from what they were when we were contemplating a war which was expected, to be limited to the confines of Europe. I think that almost all the people realize that it is in their interest to give to the government, in time *of world-wide war the utmost powers that can possibly be given, realizing of course, that these powers can only be exercised in the light of its responsibility to parliament and that the government must receive the support of the majority in parliament before any measures can be given effect to.


Grote Stirling: Will the Prime Minister
permit a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Would he care to say a word in regard to the grave difficulty I fore-[DOT]see in respect of getting the vote out?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to that I have this feeling. The people themselves will realize that the government would not ask for this full power unless it was in the interest of the people themselves that it should be given to the government. This matter is one that affects their lives. The situation is different from a general election; it is not a general election to decide between one party and another, but it is a matter that affects
the home of every individual, that may affect the life of every individual in the country, certainly will affect the future of every individual, and will determine to what extent every man, woman and child in this country is to be half slave and half free or wholly slave or wholly free. If the people understand that and if hon. members will present the case to their constituents, pointing out the seriousness of the war and the state of the world at the present time and how it is to the people's own interests that they give the government full power, I think the people will come out and vote.
Also there is no reason why voluntary organizations should not be furthered to the utmost. Those who feel deeply-and I think that includes most of the people in this country-should organize themselves into voluntary groups to bring the people out. Let me make this perfectly clear so that there can be no mistake about it; if the vote should be overwhelmingly in support of the question asked in the plebiscite I shall not for one moment claim that it is a vote of confidence in this particular government in the carrying on of the war, but that it is a vote by the people of this country to give to any government the right to have and to feel it has the full power and authority which a government should have under conditions such as exist at this time of war.
Let me make this very clear, because it has been said that the government will claim a large majority as a great victory for itself, we are past the time when anyone can afford to talk in terms of party politics. We have in the recent by-elections had one illustration of the folly and baneful effect of doing that sort of thing through the amount of controversy to which they gave rise. Let us seek to unite ourselves, and here is the ground on which we can be united, to tell the people the situation, a situation so serious that they must show to the country at large that they are prepared to give to the government all the possible power needed to deal with it.
One other point. A great deal has been said in different parts of the world, and in our own country, about the New Order that is to come when this war is over. I have said on two or three occasions, I feel it very deeply, that unless that new order emerges and asserts itself before the war is over we shall see very little of any new order when the war is over.
What is the old order that is to give place to something new? The old order, the order which has brought on this war, is an order which attaches no value whatever to any treaty, to any contract, to any pledge, to any obligation, to anything that is honourable, but which says that no matter how deceitful, how



S34 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
crooked, how wrong, whatever will get results through might and force, is the order that should be followed in the world. In other words, its supporters seek to build a totalitarian world on deceit, and betrayal, doing away with free institutions, doing away with democratic government, doing away altogether with any real relationship between the people and their governing institutions. Does anyone in this assembly believe that Hitler would ever have been permitted or able to go to war if a free parliament had been maintained in Germany? Does anyone believe that Mussolini if he had not worked into the position that he did of complete control himself over his people and above them would ever have had the freedom to bring that country into the war? The thing the people are going to demand in the new order is that all relationships, so far as it is possible to have them so, between a government and a people shall be maintained on the highest grounds on which they oan be maintained. They will insist on public honour in the transaction of public business, and they will insist above everything else that the government that is carrying on the affairs of their country shall be responsive to the will of the people and see that it is administering that will and no other.
A good deal has been said about leadership and lack of leadership. The question of individual leadership is a small matter, men come and men go and they are soon forgotten. But the history of nations continues to be remembered through generations. Canada has taken a great place in this war. Canada's war effort, I believe, is something that when the war is over and we get through with political controversy the people of this country will be more proud of than any other thing in the history of this Dominion; because it has been, in Mr. Churchill's own words, a magnificent effort and all of us should seek to have it known as such. And as I have said over and over again, it is not the effort of the government, it is the effort of the people of Canada. What the government has been able to do has been done only by virtue of what the people have been prepared to allow them to do. In connection with the new order of things which is to control the future, I say that this country apart from its war effort in the aspects we have been discussing here has in some other particulars set a noble example to every nation. And they are particulars which relate to the future of democracy, and to the question of whether democracy is possible or not. We were told that it was not possible for a people to decide in their own free parliament whether they should go to war or not; that that decision had to be made for them by some government before they were assembled together. Well, this country has proved the 
opposite, Canada has shown the world that the representatives of the people brought together from all parts of the dominion in a free parliament are able to decide, and to decide promptly the position which they will take with regard to participation in war. That is a great gain for democracy.
Another thing which Canada has done has been to show the world that it is possible for a democracy to see that the people's voice continues to govern in its affairs even in a time of war; that those clauses in its constitution which have been framed for the purpose of preserving the rights of the people in their own affairs of government can be exercised in times of war as well as in times of peace. Some of us were told that we could not have an election in war time, that it was all wrong, would create confusion and the like. Well, the government did not view it in that way, the people of Canada did not view it in that way. We had our election in war time; and we are able to say, as Lincoln said at the time of the civil war, "The whole purpose of the people's concern in the war itself would have been lost, if the people had to be deprived of the fundamental rights which were reserved to them by their constitution." We have not usurped the constitution of this country. We have held to it; and I view with a good deal of concern this business of assemblies perpetuating their own existence for indefinite periods of time without allowing the people to have any voice in the matter, regardless of what their constitution may be. I think the people are able to look after themselves in these matters if they are given an opportunity to do so.	.
There are two outstanding achievements, in the nature of a national example. I put third, although perhaps most important of all, that the government of a country should have a sense of its moral obligations as well as a sense of its legal obligations. There has been very little said in the Tecent past about moral obligations on the part of nations, but unless I am greatly mistaken there is nothing that is going to mean as much in the future of mankind. If we are going to rule out of our public life the honour of public men and of parliament; if we are going to rule out those things which above all else we have been taught all our lives to regard as most sacred, namely the promise, the word that is better than the bond, the contract expressed or implied that has been made between a government and its people, the treaties between nations-if these things are to be ruled out of our public life then public life will become chaos indeed. But if we allow the people to

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Diejenbaker
see that when we do give a pledge, when we do assume power at their instance, we are continually reminded of the source from which that power comes; that we are going to honour their rights as we seek to honour our own conscience, so we shall be laying the foundation of the kind of order that will be enduring through the years to come.
John George Diefenbaker: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot begin to follow the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in all the arguments that he has advanced. As I listened to the termination of his speech and the plea for a new order. I could not but agree with his words. If only that plea had been made in the beginning of his address, for a new order in Canada at this time, a new order free from political partisanship and with only one thing in mind -the desire to be guided in what we do by the opportunity and the challenge that is ours -it would have been something to inspire this country at this time.
The Prime Minister says, "Trust the people." Yet, Mr. Speaker, does he trust the people when he fails to place before them the question they will be required to answer? They are not told what is going to happen after this question is answered. I thought, as the right hon. gentleman spoke, that he would have told the people of Canada, in language that would be unmistakable, of the challenge to this country at this time; of the need for action; of the necessity, if you will, that he be relieved of his responsibilities incident to this commitment, and of what he would do, and the leadership he would give, if Canada should release him from that commitment. Five or six weeks have gone by in this session; the question has been asked over and over again of the government and the Prime Minister: What are you going to do? That is what the people of Canada want to know to-day.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: You have been told.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman says we have been told.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Of course you have.


John George Diefenbaker: In one province we have been told that there will be nothing done; in other parts of Canada we have been told that selective service will be brought into effect. We do not know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says the people have been told these things. Will he tell us by what authoritative source that has been said? Will he cite one case of anyone with any authority to speak in the matter who has made any such statement?
44561-53J


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, the by-election campaigns just concluded were characterized in one province by the stand taken by the premier of that province that no action is contemplated, which was clear and unequivocal, and in other parts of Canada the stand taken was that there would be action. Yet to-day, when events are taking place the like of which this empire has never seen; with Java being attacked, with the Malay states overrun and with Singapore fallen, the Prime Minister of Canada says things are not yet serious enough to demand further action in the matter of man-power. Singapore, it is said, fell partly because of the lack of man-power. But the answer by the Prime Minister as to what action will be taken is that he cannot tell the people at this time and that it will remain his secret, a secret that time and circumstance alone may reveal.
I have in my hand a copy of the bill. Why does it not incorporate the question to be asked of the people? This bill as placed before parliament will have but one result. It will change the constitutional history of this dominion, in that it will permit the Prime Minister at any time from this day on to submit a plebiscite on any matter whatsoever to the people of Canada, with the authority of this parliament. It is so worded, Mr. Speaker, that it is operative beyond the war. It is so worded that the Prime Minister can continue to submit plebiscites at any time and without restriction. Let me ask this question. Why was not the method followed this time similar to that adopted in submitting the plebiscite of 1898? In my opinion this bill represents a milestone along the way that will destroy responsible government. The Prime Minister has said in effect that a great harm was done to the principle of responsible government in 1940 when he promised that there would never be conscription for overseas service, and. now in effect wishes to undo the harm so that responsible government may be restored again.
I am not dealing to-day with the arguments that have been advanced against the taking of a plebiscite containing these words: "Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligations arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for overseas service?" I repeat, and this epitomizes my viewpoint on this subject, that the submission of this plebiscite in those words without the people of Canada knowing in advance what the government intends to do, or without even a suggestion as to what the government intends to do, is going to divide the people of this country as never before; that it is the repudiation of governmental

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Diejenbaker
responsibility, and just one more step along the road that leads to derision o-f parliament and of parliamentary institutions generally.
The Prime Minister for years-in fact during all his political life-has stood for the principle of the supremacy of parliament, and he has stressed that position since 1935. But what is the record? This legislation falls in line with his attitude toward parliament since 1935. I realize that during war time there is a necessity for orders in council incident to the carrying on of the war, but that does not excuse the issuing of orders in council in ever-increasing manner with respect to peacetime measures as well. There is no justification for that at all.
Only yesterday it was revealed that since the outbreak of war 20,677 orders in council had been issued, and that of that number 5,470 had been passed while parliament was in session. Yes, even since parliament has been in session in the last five weeks 412 orders in. council have been passed. So general has this situation become that when I asked a question in the house as to how many statutes of parliament had been changed or suspended by orders in council the Prime Minister of Canada could give me no particulars. He said in effect that there were too many of them, and that it would be difficult if not impossible to give the information. The answer he made on May 19, 1941, is reported at page 2912 of Hansard, in reply to the question whether any orders in council purporting to change or suspend the operation of the provisions of any dominion statute, either in whole or in part, had been passed since the outbreak of war. He said:
I might reply orally to this question. To the first part the answer is yes.
Then the Prime Minister continued:
As to the second-
A question, by the way, which asked for details-and surely the people of Canada have a right to know what statutes passed by parliament have been suspended or amended by order in council-
-I am informed by the clerk of the council that there is no separate index of orders in council which amend statutes, and that it would require a great deal of research to discover the different orders which might have that effect and also to reply to the question as to the operative effect of the respective orders so passed.
That answer means that while this parliament is supreme, the government is unable to tell what statutes have been amended or suspended by order in council.	*
What of the supremacy of parliament now? Almost every day, regulations with all the force of law are passed by the governor in

council, by ministers of the crown, by heads of departments and by government agencies and boards, until we have reached the position where seventy-five per cent, if not more, of the laws put into effect since the war began1, and which affect the lives of every citizen in Canada, have been passed not by this parliament but by this indirect method. Parliament is constantly receding in importance as the trend continues unabated.
We have before us in this bill the latest step. This measure was drafted by exceptionally able legal draftsmen, and in my opinion the omissions are not unintentional.
I am not now opposing the plebiscite to release the government from its pledge. I am not here for the purpose of adopting an attitude of obstruction and I may point out that while this parliament has been in session for more than five weeks at the most serious time in the history of the British empire, any delays w'hich have arisen have not been caused by the official opposition. Less than one-fifth of the time in debate has been taken up by us. We placed our views before parliament, in opposition to the submission of this plebiscite, but the majority in this house have decided that a plebiscite should be submitted to the people of Canada, and we must abide by that decision. A plebiscite is to be taken regardless of the fact that in the long history of Great Britain, with all the constitutional changes which have taken place, no government has ever submitted any matter to the people by way of plebiscite. In Canada such procedure is a departure, excepting, as was mentioned by the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty), in the case of the liquor plebiscite submitted to the people in 1898.
To illustrate the difference I should point out that under the measure as it now appears before parliament the Prime Minister and his government do not have to submit any questions to the people, whereas under the plebiscite of 1898 the question to be asked was in the statute. The other major difference is that the government may submit as many questions as they choose when they choose. They may place a plebiscite on any question before the people at any time in the future. There is no control whatsoever-and I intend to refer to those sections which have particular reference to that situation. The statute of 1898 allowed for only one submission. Mr. Speaker, while the empire fights, Canada plebiscites.
When the statute was passed in 1898 there was nothing evasive in the attitude of the government. The question was put in the statute. The regulations as to voting were contained in the statute. The elections act,

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Diefenbaker
with the necessary changes, was incorporated in that statute. The act is chapter 51 of the statutes for 1898. Section 3 is as follows:
There shall he submitted to vote of electors hereinafter declared entitled to vote thereon the following question:
_ Are you in favour of am act prohibiting the importation and manufacture or sale of spirits, wine, ale, beer, eider and all other alcoholic liquors for use as beverages?
It even states how the ballot paper is to be worded, and what question is to be placed on it.
What about the measure now before us? If I am correct-and I believe anyone reading the bill will conclude that I am-this bill is plebiscite legislation, and by the authority of this parliament if passed it will establish in Canada the right to govern by way of plebiscite. Unless the bill is restricted in its scope, from now on the government of Canada may continue to submit questions, without any control whatsoever.
The Prime Minister has spoken about responsible government. Is it not the principle of responsible government that the elected representatives of the people shall legislate for the safety and welfare of the state, and that the government shall continue in office so long as it has the support of the majority in parliament? When that support is lost, an election follows where no person or group can command the support of the majority.
As I listened to the Prime Minister terminate his remarks to-day I wondered whether they were not in fact a prelude to an election regardless of the outcome of the plebiscite. His speech indicated that possibility to me. Here is the bill as it has been submitted to this house, and I am going to refer to it in some detail. Section 1 reads:
This act may be cited as the Dominion Plebiscite Act, 1942.
That is general enough. Then the bill goes on to define the various persons who are entitled to vote, and it defines plebiscite as follows:
(d) "plebiscite" or "dominion plebiscite" means the taking of a vote on the question set out in a proclamation of the governor in council issued under section three of this act.
If the Prime Minister, under section 3 of the bill, had set out the question to be asked, then there would be no doubt that this bill contemplated only one plebiscite for a definite purpose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but may I say that I did make it quite clear to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) when he referred to the same matter that I could see no reason whatever why the question itself
should not be inserted in the bill. I hope it will be by the committee.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sfmbury):: Why not make this a special bill?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all it was intended to be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Apparently the Prime Minister did not get his ideas across to the draftsman of the bill. If this bill becomes law, if it is passed in its present form, we are going to have in Canada government by plebiscite, not by responsible government.


Mr. McLARTY:: The insertion of the particular question would avoid any possibility of that.


John George Diefenbaker: But this is the bill upon which we are asked to vote. If we pass this bill we allow the government to submit a plebiscite at its will, at any time and on any matter whatsoever, and against that I protest. Let me read section 3:
3.	(1) The governor in council may by proclamation order the taking of a plebiscite under the provisions of this act.
(2) The proclamation shall state fully the question to be submitted to the voters at the plebiscite in the same words and form as it will appear on the ballot papers to be used at the plebiscite.
It becomes perfectly clear that unless the members of this house, representing as we do the people of Canada, demand that the question to be asked be embodied ini the bill, we are giving to the government, not a blank cheque but the right to submit any matter they choose to the people of Canada at any time. There is nowhere any limitation on so doing. Section 5 reads:
Any person who shall have voted at a plebiscite taken under the provisions of this act during the present war shall thereafter be ineligible-
"During the present war." Why the insertion of the provision that these people shall be ineligible when they have voted at a plebiscite during the present war if only one plebiscite is to be submitted? These significant words reveal the situation exactly. The statute will continue in effect beyond the termination of this war, but the only disqualification of exemption from military service of conscientious objectors would be in connection with anyone who had voted during the period of the war. This shows the danger of legislation such as this unless it is strictly limited within the ambit of the question that the Prime Minister says will be submitted to the people of Canada.
The leader of the opposition gave the government warning on Friday last of what our attitude would be in this regard and of

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Diejenbaker
our wish to have the question included in the bill, but it has persisted in placing this bill before parliament in this form. Therefore, we feel that we have the duty to move an amendment to ensure the inclusion of the question in clear and unmistakable language.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth):
That the bill be not now read a. second time but that this house is of the opinion that the use of the powers conferred thereby be restricted to the submission thereunder of one plebiscite only.
I intend now to make a few suggestions with regard to the bill. I repeat that I think the government should have told the country what it is going to do after the vote has been taken. To-day it is Janus-faced; in one part of Canada it looks one way, in another part it looks another way. The Prime Minister says that he thinks the people will give an all-out vote. I hope they do, because there would be nothing more tragic if this plebiscite were defeated. We on this side of the house have asked the Prime Minister to tell the people of Canada just how serious he regards the situation, but without avail and the only conclusion that can be taken from the speech of the Prime Minister is that conditions are not serious, for he has stated clearly that he would not think of asking for more man-power under the selective system as conditions are at this time.
I should like to see a one hundred per cent vote on this matter. I do not believe in a compulsory system of getting out votes, but I do ask the Prime Minister and the government to shake themselves out of the lethargy they are in and tell the people of the gravity of the empire's position and of the imperative need of action. Many people are going to fail to vote because they believe that this is a vote of confidence in the government. The Prime Minister has said that he would not interpret a favourable vote as a vote of confidence. I do not care how it is interpreted. Time is running against us and he should act. "Wait and see" is apparently to be the policy of this government, even to-day as we listened to the casualties in Hong Kong.
I repeat that the people have a right to know at this time what the government intends to do. I am not one to advocate a sit-down strike as far as voting on this matter is concerned for such action would be reprehensible. The government asks us over here to be Willkies, but I ask the Prime Minister to be a Roosevelt from now on, and to refer to the war effort of this nation not as the governments' war effort but as the war effort of Canada.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: You did hear him say that, my friend.


John George Diefenbaker: That was after he
had referred several times with exultation to the results of the campaign that recently took place. In the last paragraph of his address he did ask the Canadian people to regard this as a Canadian war effort. Why wait ten weeks for a vote on this matter? The ordinary routine peace-time election procedure should [DOT] not apply to-day. We should shorten up that period. Where shall we be in ten weeks? Only on Thursday last we read in the press that if Java falls and Australia be attacked., the next places on the Japanese time-table to be attacked are Hawaii and Alaska in April.
Voluntary workers should be asked for over the radio. Why were not great patriotic organizations in this country asked to take over this work? But they will not do it enthusiastically, Mr. Speaker, unless they know that in getting out and working to the end that this government may be empowered to do something, the government, when it gets the power is actually going to act and without delay.
I have had complaint after complaint over the suggestion that men are going to be sent overseas for the purpose of taking the vote. In my opinion such a course is unnecessary. Send the ballots over to Canadian general headquarters in Great Britain, have them distributed to the divisions and battalions, and set out in military orders the date of the voting, have the voting take place at battalion headquarters. What does the government intend to do in regard to the counting of the soldiers' votes?
I commend the government and am glad that it has stood firm against those who would have had all the votes in Canada thrown into one common container. That would have done away with initiative in every province and every constituency of this dominion. I commend the Prime Minister for the course he has adopted of letting each province and each constituency know just how it stands on this question.
But so far as the voting overseas is concerned I do think this, that the men who to-day are serving this country know what they want, and' I would not divide their votes among the constituencies. I suggest that their votes be counted without regard to constituency so that we can have the message of the men overseas in a united voice as to what they think the government should be doing at this time.
I have nothing more to say, Mr. Speaker, except again to point out the necessity of having the bill as it now stands amended at once as I have suggested, and with that in mind I have moved an amendment. To do otherwise would be for us to pass another milestone in this dominion beyond the point we have

Questions
reached to-day in the decline of responsible government. Parliament is being emasculated *as a result of the creation of administrative boards of all kinds and order in council government. This act unless amended may well be just another milestone towards the destruction of that which we are fighting to preserve in these days of war-our free parliamentary institutions characterized by the principle of responsible government*


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I raise a point of older, Mr. Speaker. I submit that the amendment is out of order, and I raise the point now in order that your honour may have an opportunity to consider the matter. The amendment tends to amend the bill, which I do not think is right, and the amendment does not Object to the principle of the bill.
On motion of Mr. Veniot the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 5.55 pm.
Thursday, February 26, 1942