[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue) presented the first report of the special committee on the defence of Canada regulations, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I rise not for the purpose of opposing the motion, but to ask the minister a question: Did the committee consider the question of what witnesses would be called, and by what method? And would the minister and the committee be good enough to consider suggestions from me as to one or two witnesses whom I should like to have called? Frankly I have in mind the young man to whom I referred when discussing the defence of Canada regulations the other day. He might be of some service to the committee.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Consideration was given to the matter of what witnesses should be called, and a subcommittee was appointed to take that matter into consideration. That subcommittee will meet to-morrow. If the hon. leader of the opposition would let me have the name of the gentleman to whom he refers, it will be placed before the subcommittee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth) presented the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Are any negotiations pending or being renewed with the United States government for the further development and generation of additional power from the Niagara river of 10,000 horse-power or more to be allotted to each country to meet increased power demands?

Questions

2.	Will a copy of any additional papers be tabled relating to this and the preservation of the scenic beauty of Niagara falls, since the last return was made to an order of this house herein.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Discussions are continuing with the United States regarding all aspects of the St. Lawrence and great lakes development, including the question of additional power from the Niagara river.
2.	Additional papers will be tabled at the conclusion of the negotiations.


OIL PRODUCTION IN CANADA-PIPE LINE CONSTRUCTION FROM ALBERTA FIELDS
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	What steps are being taken by the government to increase the production of oil in Alberta and other parts of Canada?
2.	Is anything being done by this government to construct a pipe line from Alberta to the Pacific coast or the head of the great lakes?
3.	How much additional survey and exploration work will be carried on in Alberta and other parts of Canada in an earnest endeavour to increase our oil output?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Production of oil can be increased only by drilling and by finding new oil fields or extensions of old oil fields. The finding of new fields and the extension of old fields is in large measure a geological problem, and field parties of the bureau of geology and topography are attacking this problem in the two main producing regions.
2.	Officers of the department have conducted an investigation into the economic feasibility of the pipeline movement of Turner valley oil to Ontario, and this is now being studied.
3.	The increase of effort this year has been made in Alberta and bordering parts of Saskatchewan where the geological and topographical field parties have been increased from 6 to 17.


WAR EQUIPMENT PURCHASES FROM MOTOR CAR COMPANIES
Mr. FAIR:: What is the value of war equipment purchased from (a) Ford Motor Company; (b) General Motors Corporation: (c) Chrysler Corporation, between September 20, 1939, and April 10, 1940?


Mr. HOWE:: (a) Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd., Windsor, Ontario, S765.562.65;
(b)	General Motors Products of Canada. Ltd., Oshawa, Ontario, 8272,572.92; General Motor Sales Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A., $766.52; (c) Chrysler Corporation of Canada, Ltd., Windsor, Ontario, S41.045.41. Total. $1,079,947.50.
IMr. Church.J



NATIONAL FUEL SUPPLY


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What recommendations were made by the Tory commission on national fuel supply?
2.	What was the cost of it?
3.	Have any recommendations been carried out, and, if so, by whom?
4.	Did the report recommend a national fuel policy as this house recommended in 1923?
5.	Did the report deal with importations of Russian and German coal?
6.	What is being done to guard Canada against a fuel famine during next winter?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1. The commission recommended as follows:
"1. At the present moment in so far as the fixing of export prices of anthracite in the countries of origin permit, there is freedom in competition in the importation of anthracite coal. Your commission recommends that every effort should be made to maintain that position. Some of the competition comes from new sources of supply and through new exporting agencies, the permanence of which have not yet been demonstrated. In seeking to maintain a wholesome competitive market it should be recognized in so far as Canada's needs are concerned anthracite with a low ash fusion point is in a special position, and that in this field neither Scotch nor United States anthracite is competitive. Unless greater freedom of purchase of this particular type of coal from Wales is made available to importers other than the Webster group, it is very important that the channels of trade with other countries producing low ash fusion point anthracite should be kept open. It is of equal importance that importations should come directly from the country of origin and not as in the past through agencies already controlling competitive supplies in another country.
"2. To this end the continued enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act is recommended. Your commission believes that under the existing conditions of production and trade the surest way to protect the consumer is to maintain open competition.
"3. It is recommended that encouragement should be given to every effort to establish cooperative organizations now recognized in many countries. Without question great advantages would accrue to the less favoured class of citizen in Montreal if a scheme along the lines suggested by Alderman Biggar of Montreal was put into operation. In this connection attention is called to the fact that there are joint stock companies using the name 'cooperative' which are not in any sense

Questions
cooperative institutions and, in the opinion of your commission, they should not be permitted to use the name.
"4. It is recommended that the work done under the Combines Investigation Act in maintaining competition and preventing price fixing be supplemented by a more vigorous use on the part of the municipalities of their power to eliminate frauds and other abuses. The licensing of dealers, the prevention of short-weighting, the suppressing of fraudulent advertising, the requirement of an adequate and correct description of the coal on delivery slips, are within their authority. This authority vigorously exercised on the lines suggested above would go a long way toward removing many of the consumer's complaints.
"5. It is recommended that all anthracite coal entering Canada be classified as follows:
(a)	That anthracite coal should be sold in Canada under its own name, i.e., Welsh anthracite should be sold as Welsh, American as American, German as German, Russian as Russian, etc.;
(b)	That if any of these coals are mixed, the mixture should be sold in Canada as mixed coal under the name of the mixture, viz., Welsh and German, Welsh and Russian, etc.;
(c)	That the fuel ratio of coals classified as anthracite for customs purposes based on their condition as received at the ports of entry, as distinct from those semi-anthracites referred to in (d) below, also other coals including those mixed with non-anthracite, for sale in Canada, shall not be less than 8-0 and shall not possess caking quality;
(d)	That all other coals, heretofore graded as anthracite or semi-anthracite, having a ratio of fixed carbon to volatile of not less than 6 and without caking quality, shall be classed as semi-anthracite coal and so sold on the Canadian market;
(e)	That Welsh anthracite be sold in Canada as grade A or grade B, the former complying with the above specifications but being the coal known in Wales as Big Vein anthracite, the latter also complying with the above specifications but being the coal known in Wales as Red Vein anthracite, and that if these two coals are sold in Canada as a mixture the proportion of each should be stated;
(Note: The distinction involved in this classification is not difficult as it can be determined by the coal being invoiced by the mine in Wales from which it comes. It is a classification known to every importer of Welsh coal. The difference between the Red Vein and the Big Vein is not so much a matter
95826-58J
of the content in B.T.U.'s, as of the physical quality of the coal, the Red Vein being much more friable and hence subject to greater degradation.)
(f)	That in all sales slips and invoices and in all advertisements the coal be described in accordance with the specifications suggested above.
"6. It is recommended that continuous and systematic analyses of anthracites entering Canada be made. Your commission was surprised to find so little information available as to the quality of imported anthracite. The right to sample and analyse for public use should be given to persons responsible for the work of classification suggested above. The costs of such systematic analyses of imported anthracite coal and of the work of classification should be covered by a special levy of
2	cents a ton on all imported anthracite."
2.	823,878.64.
3.	Recommendation 1, carried out. Recommendation 2, carried out. Recommendations
3	and 4, for provincial and municipal authorities. Recommendation 5, not carried out. Recommendation 6, not carried out.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.
6.	A coal administrator has been appointed under the wartime prices and trade board.
As a war measure the licensing of all producers, dealers, and distributors of coal and coke has been carried out by the coal administrator.
Direct representations and meetings have been arranged with importers and distributors of British coal in order to determine what quantities may be available for the Canadian market.
Similar arrangements were carried out with American producers and distributors of American coals. Assurance has been received that ample supplies are and will be available. Steps have also been taken to augment the supply of British blowercoal by the use of special quality of U.S. and Canadian coals and coke.
Every endeavour is being made to increase the supply of a suitably prepared quality of Alberta coal for domestic consumption in Ontario.
Householders have been advised through the press and other channels to obtain their fuel supplies at as early a date as possible. By so doing they will ease the burden imposed on transportation facilities due to the exigencies of war.
It is not anticipated that there will be any shortage of coal.
Questions


QUEENS-LUNENBURG DREDGING CONTRACTS
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Has the government employed the dredging -outfit in which Merril D. Rawding is interested -on work in Queens-Lunenburg since 1935?
2.	If so, at what places was said outfit used, -and was the work done after tenders were called and contracts let or on unit costs basis?
3.	How much was paid at each such place in each fiscal year since 1935, what were the contract prices or unit prices, and total payment for each job?
4.	Has the above outfit been authorized to do any work in 1940, and, if so, what are the particulars of locations, quantities and prices?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Port Medway.
(b)	Cahoon's island.
(c)	Coffin's island.
(d)	East Port Medway.
(e)	Liverpool.
(f)	Getson's cove.
(g)	La Have ferry dock.
(h)	Parks creek, La Have.
(i)	Liverpool.
(j)	Northwest bay, Port Medway.
Work at above places done on unit
cost basis.
(k)	Moose harbour (dredging plant rented
for this work).
3. Fiscal year	Unit price	Amount paid(a)	1937-38	.. 60 cents per cubic yard, place measurement	... 8 900 00(a)	1938-39	tt tt	tt	tt It	tt	. .. 863 02(b)	1938-39	.. 46 "	ft	tt tt	tt	. .. 4,467 01(c)	tt tt	.. 42 "	it	" scow measurement	. .. 2,455 16(d)	tt tt	.. 50 "	it	it tt	It	. .. 1,081 20(e)	tt a	.. 54 "	it	tt tt	it	. .. 4,329 13(f)	1939-40	.. 50 "	It	tt It	it	. .. 2,646 15(g)	U tt	.. 50 "	tt	tt tt	tt	. .. 365 15and $5 for class	"A" rock	(h)	tt it	.. 50 cents per cubic yard scow measurement	. .. 282 59(i)	tt tt	.. 54 "	tt	tt tt	tt	. .. 1,911 12(j)	tt u	.. 50 "	It	tt tt	tt	. .. 3,824 57(k)	tt tt	.. 83.13 per hour (rental of plant)..	. .. 1,946 30
4. No.


SAINT JOHN DRY DOCK COMPANY
Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: 1.	Was a contract awarded the Saint John Drydoek Company, or a subsidiary of this company for fortifications or works of a similar nature on Partridge island, Saint John, New Brunswick, this year?
2.	If so, what was the contract price?
3.	Was such contract awarded after public tenders had been called for?
4.	If not, were any firms asked to tender, and, if so, what were the names of these firms, and what were their respective tenders?
5.	If such a contract was awarded to the Saint John Drydoek Company or a subsidiary of this company, did this company sub-let this contract or any part of it? If so, what was the name of the contractor and, if only part of the contract was sub-let, how much of it was sub-let ?


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I suggest that in the national interest this question be dropped.
Question dropped.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-WAR SUPPLY BOARD-MEMBERSHIP


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Has the government taken over the municipal airport in Fort William?
2.	If so, what rent or other consideration is being paid therefor, and to whom is it being paid?
3.	For what purpose is the airport to be used?
4.	Have any private citizens any control over training facilities at this airport?
5.	If so, what are the names of such persons, and what is the nature and extent of their interest and control ?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	SI per annum, payable to the city of
Fort William.	[DOT]
3.	For air training undeT supervision of R.C.A.F.
4.	Aerodrome is operated by the Thunder Bay Air Training School, Limited.
5.	Thunder Bay Air Training School, Limited, is responsible for the management, instruction and maintenance of No. 2 elementary air training flying school.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Were the exhibition buildings at Island park, New Brunswick, taken over by the Department of National Defence, and, if so, when?
2.	How many steam boilers, for heating purposes, were installed in the said buildings during the winter months, or say from October 1, 1939, to January 31, 1940?
3.	How were the said buildings heated during the months of December, 1939, January, February and March, 1940?
4.	What firm, or firms, supplied the fuel used during the above-mentioned months, and what quantity of fuel was used each month?
5.	What use was made of said buildings during the winter months?


Mr. POWER:: Return tabled.


WATERWAY AND RAILWAY EXPENDITURES
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How much was spent by the dominion government for dredging the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, and for operating and administering the St. Lawrence ship channel during the years from 1935 to 1939?
2.	How much was spent during the years 1935 to 1939 under the Maritime Freight Rates Act to compensate railways for the difference < between the tariff tolls and normal tolls on all traffic moved during the above-mentioned years?
3.	How much was spent during the years 1935 to 1939 to provide for construction and improvements in connection with the Hudson bay railway, and to provide for losses in connection with the operation of the railway during the above years?
4.	How much money was advanced by the dominion government during the years 1935 to 1939 for the following: (a) Montreal harbour; (b) Churchill harbour; (c) Vancouver harbour; (d) Halifax harbour?


PURCHASES OF MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	What contracts, if any, for the supply of milk or milk products to any department of the government, and including the forces on active service, are held by H. S. Arkell, and/or Highclere Dairy?
2.	What is the amount of milk or milk products required to be supplied under each such contract?
3.	What is the contract price in each case?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BRUCE:: For a copy of all correspondence between any member of the government and Mr. Wallace R. Campbell, recently chairman of the war supply board, since functioning as chairman.



ROCKFORD, SASK., MAIL SERVICE

Mr. NICHOLSON:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, recommendations and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, dated from April 1 to June 15, 19-10, relative to, (a) change of mail carrier between Endeavour and Rockford, Saskatchewan, and (b) change of postmaster and post office at Rockford, Saskatchewan.



BRITISH CHILDREN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to ask a question or two of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with respect to the evacuation of British children. On May 27 the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) asked the Prime Minister if it was the intention of the Canadian government to offer immediately the hospitality of Canada to evacuated British children. The Prime Minister replied to the effect that the answer concerns itself in the main with transportation.
As England has control of shipping, this will present no difficulty to this government. In a Canadian Press dispatch it is stated that thousands of British mothers anxiously await
British Children

the statement of Geoffrey Shakespeare, parliamentary under-secretary of state for dominion affairs, regarding the evacuation of children to Canada and other dominions. Mr. Shakespeare stated that the plan, on a huge scale, would be rushed into operation as soon as the dominions' agreements are obtained. Has the Prime Minister offered Canadian hospitality for these children? Surely we could immediately absorb a very large number.
Then I should like to say a word with respect to a more detailed matter. I had been informed that immigration officials in London will not issue a permit to allow children to come to Canada unless they have received an invitation from a responsible Canadian who will give them a home. In my opinion this would virtually amount to a prohibition of the issue of permits unless there is assurance that these British children will not become a public charge. I had intended to ask what was the position in regard to this matter; I had been in communication with Doctor Skelton and also with Mr. Blair of the Department of Immigration. I am glad to say that in some degree at least Mr. Blair has removed my anxiety by sending me a letter which I received just after I had drafted this interrogatory and just before I came into the house. I think this letter may be of great interest to those concerned in this matter, and I would crave the privilege of reading it into the record so that those interested may be informed as to the present attitude with regard to individual cases.
The letter is dated June 19, 1940, and reads as follows:
In reply to your telephone inquiry of date about the admission of British people who want to find homes here during the w-ar, I may say that every encouragement that we can offer is being given to people of this sort. We have had many inquiries from residents of Canada who can offer homes to relatives or friends from overseas and these are all being advised that relatives or friends may come freely and without any delay or "red tape'', when they can pay their own passage and are joining relatives or friends here or are coming with sufficient funds to look after themselves.	_	_ _
Our London office has been advised to facilitate this movement in every way possible. We do not ask for any bonds or other guarantee from residents of Canada nor do we waste time in unnecessary investigations as that might prevent people getting out while sailing is possible.
Yours very truly,
F. C. Blair, Director.
Therefore I would really confine myself to the first question with regard to the general scheme, and I should like to take this * opportunity to express my appreciation of
[Mr R. B. Hanson.1
the position of the immigration officials and of the government in respect to this matter of individual children or persons desiring to come to Canada for the duration of the war, to escape what may be bloody slaughter over there.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I must confess that I am at a loss to know whether my hon. friend asked me a question or was making a speech of his own.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
not take it that way, if I were you. I did ask a very serious question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite sincere in what I say. As I listened to my hon. friend's first question it seemed to me at the outset he was questioning my veracity with respect to the answer I made some time ago as to the welcome Canada was prepared to extend to evacuated children from Britain. Subsequently my hon. friend went on to read something from an official of the government which evidently verified what I had said. My first thought was to reply to my hon. friend by saying that I was very glad he had been able to receive a statement from an official of the government which had confirmed in his mind what had been said by the Prime Minister. That is what I should like to say now. Apart from that I must confess that I do not understand the purpose of reading the statements made in the form he did.


Joseph Henry Harris: Quite true;
the Prime Minister gave the word but he gave no details.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I gave the
word and I had hoped and expected that my word would have been accepted. I said there would be difficulties with respect to transportation. My hon. friend has just said the British government handles transportation, and therefore there are no difficulties.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In that
regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then may I say to my hon. friend that one of the greatest difficulties this government has had in respect to many matters overseas has been in regard to getting shipping facilities; and I was quite thoroughly informed on that matter when I answered my hon. friend. However, I wish to thank him for his words of appreciation to the government on our readiness to accept children. We have always been ready to accept them, but all these matters have to be [DOT] taken up as the opportunity arises. If there is any doubt in the mind of the hon. member

British Children
who is whispering with his neighbour in regard to this matter-because I think it is from him that these questions come-I would say that everything I have said in this house with respect to the readiness, willingness and anxiety of this government to receive evacuated children from the old country is perfectly true. There has been no hesitation with respect to our readiness to handle the matter to the fullest extent possible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At the risk of delaying the house I must say that in the parlance of the street I am afraid we have our wires crossed. I had no intention of provoking anything of a recriminatory nature this afternoon. However, some of us do feel very keenly about this matter. What I really wanted to ask the Prime Minister was if there had been a general offer of Canadian hospitality for these children.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer is
yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very well, then; that is the answer.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Perhaps I may supplement what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said by saying that an offer has been made to receive children between the ages of five and sixteen years, and in some cases children of less than five years of age. I may add that we have been informed that no children will be sent to Canada except with the permission of the parents or guardians, and that is the position to-day. There is perfect freedom of movement for any others who wish to come; and for the information of the house I may say that there are either on the way, or shortly will be on the way, quite a substantial number of boys from a school, who are coming to Canada to resume their education. It takes a little time to work out all the problems associated with these matters; but when the record is placed before this country I have not the slightest doubt that the Canadian people will approve what the government has done in the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now that this subject of evacuated children has come up, and with it the related question of transportation facilities, I think I had better give to the house a few facts which have not been given thus far, and which may help to explain the government's position, on what might be considered as delays in arranging for and announcing the numbers of evacuated children to be taken.
It is quite true that the British government made representations with regard to our accepting evacuated children. They also made very strong representations to us about their desire to have us accept interned aliens and German war prisoners. There has been considerable communication back and forth in the matter with the British government, and-


Mr. HOMUTH:: Let them keep them there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend wish us to cooperate with the British government, or does he wish us to go contrary to their wishes?


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead.


Mr. BROOKS:: It is not what he wishes; it is what the government wishes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does he not wish us to do what the British government wishes to have done?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What our government would wish.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does he wish us to cooperate with the British government?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Is the Prime Minister asking me the question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I certainly do, and I wish this government had cooperated with the British government in the last eight months.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as the record of cooperation in the last eight months is concerned, I know we have been cooperating to the utmost of our ability, and I am certain the British government would be only too prepared to say the same. I am glad the hon. member in particular agrees that in this matter we should seek to meet the wishes of the British government.
The wishes of the British government are these: In the matter of preference they are anxious that we should take first of all interned aliens, secondly, that we should take German prisoners in Britain, and thirdly that we should then consider the matter of evacuated children. The reasons they give in this connection are that the interned aliens in Great Britain may be in a position to help to direct parachutists in the event of a bombardment of the British Isles, which they are expecting hourly. They also feel that the German prisoners they have there require a great deal by way of protection, and that the men protecting them should be available for the protection of the British Isles themselves. There is great congestion, because of the numbers of refugees which have been coming there,
British Children

and they feel that it would be in the interest of safety and security in every way to have alien internees and German prisoners brought to this country, and placed in different parts of the country under protective measures here.
We have realized how the matter would likely be viewed. We have been conscious of the fact that regardless of what we did there would be some exception taken. The course we have had in view, and which we believe expresses that of the country generally, is that which has been expressed by the hon. member who has just spoken, namely that it would be desirable that we should at this particularly critical time seek to our utmost to meet the wishes of the British government in this as in other matters. We have agreed to receive here interned aliens from the United Kingdom, also German prisoners from the United Kingdom, and for some time past we have been making arrangements to see that they will be properly concentrated and controlled, when they are brought to Canada.
If there has been any delay, may I say that that delay is due to the circumstances which I have mentioned. But there has not been any delay. I must say that there has been no delay particularly in regard to this matter of receiving evacuated children. With regard to this matter, and others of the kind, I say that if a minister of the crown is asked a question and makes a definite reply, hon. members are expected to accept that reply in good faith, and not to be continually calling it in question.
I could not disclose the facts I have mentioned some time ago, and I did not wish to disclose them at the present time. But I do not purpose to permit the government to be put into a false position by any failure to place the whole reasons before the House of Commons. Those who ask questions must become responsible for the consequences of questions they have asked.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I just say a word with respect to the last remarks of the Prime Minister. If any questions are asked from this side of the house which in the public interest should not now be answered, all my right hon. friend has to do is to intimate that to me and it will be taken care of. I want to give him an illustration. Some time ago the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) asked a question about a contract at Saint John. An answer was given which clearly indicated that apparently the department was mistaken in what it believed to be the object of the question. A subsequent question was put on the order paper. Officials in the responsible department communicated with my hon. friend with 
respect to that question stating that it was not in the public interest that it be answered. Immediately we decided to drop it, and it was dropped to-day. That is the kind of cooperation I should like to give to the Prime Minister, and I hope he will not go round with, shall I say, a chip on his shoulder, looking for trouble. Apparently we have started out in the wrong atmosphere to-day- quite different from yesterday. If I have been the cause of this change of atmosphere, then I will apologize; but I am not conscious of having made any error.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend knows me well enough to know that I am the last person in the world who is likely to have a chip on his shoulder. But I am to a certain degree sensitive in matters which affect my honour, and when questions are asked in a manner meant to reflect upon replies which have been made by myself I probably cannot restrain a word with regard to them, more particularly when I happen to know a good deal about where some of those questions are coming from, and why they are being asked.
With regard to what my hon. friend has just said about being prepared to withdraw questions, if on his part, before asking a question publicly in the house which he has reason to know is likely to be embarrassing, he would be kind enough to show it to me and ask me if there is anything embarrassing in it, I should feel that that would be cooperating, too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not like to go that far. But I would be prepared to cooperate with my right hon. friend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well then. We will cooperate, and I shall go on giving my cooperation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us drop it.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: May I
say a word on a question of privilege? I think the Prime Minister referred to me a moment ago in connection with-	,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned
no name.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: In connection with the question the leader of the opposition had asked the Prime Minister. I have had a great many letters from my constituents about bringing British children to Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. ROWE:: It is a question of privilege;
the hon. member has a right to speak.

Emergency Powers-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Do I understand
that the hon. member is speaking on a question of privilege?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Yes, on a question of privilege.


An hon. MEMBER:: Then say so.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I feel it necessary to say
that in consequence of representations that have been made to me I pursued the question of bringing to this country British children evacuees. I was told at first that there were difficulties in connection with shipping. As shipping is under the control of the British government I assumed that this matter was no longer a difficulty. Only two days ago I received a cable respecting three children who were coming to Canada, and asking me if I would invite them here, because otherwise they would not be able to obtain a permit in London. As a consequence of that I cabled, inviting them to our home.


Mr. POULIOT:: There is no question of
privilege in that.



TIMBER CONTROLLER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. O'BRIEN (Northumberland, N.B.):	In view of a question I addressed to
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston), who was then leading the house, which appears at page 263 of Hansard for May 27, in which I suggested the advisability of some plan of closer cooperation with the timber controller of the United Kingdom; and further in view of the reply by the Minister of Finance at page 290 of Hansard for May 28; and considering the press announcement that Mr. H. R. MacMillan of Vancouver has been appointed as controller of timber, I should like to address the following questions to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe):
(a)	Precisely what are the duties of the new controller of timber?
(b)	Is he established at Ottawa and if so in which office?
(c)	Does he maintain a close contact with the timber controller of the United Kingdom government, and if so is the arrangement of an advisory or executive nature?
In view of the extreme importance of timber from eastern Canada in the war effort, any information regarding the foregoing would be appreciated.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I received notice of this question only a few moments ago, and I regret to say that I have not been able to read in Hansard the references mentioned. Briefly, however, I may say that it will be the duty of the controller of timber to administer the timber resources of Canada on behalf of the government in the manner best calculated to assist the war effort. The timber controller is at present established at Vancouver, because his immediate problem was in that, locality; but he will have offices in other centres across Canada. The appointment was made only last week. As to contact with the United Kingdom timber controller, of course he is working very closely with him in order to see that the requirements of the British government, as well as our own requirements, are filled.



EMERGENCY POWERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. 43, to confer certain powers upon the governor in council for the mobilization of national resources in the present war-Mr. Mackenzie King-Mr. Vien in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Special powers of the governor in council.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, the remarks which I have to make on this bill I thought could be more appropriately made in the committee stage than on the second reading because, as is quite apparent to everybody, we have not objected to its principle-


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If we could have a little order in the house hon. members might be able to hear. I am not blaming the chairman.


The CHAIRMAN:: May I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that there is far too much conversation in the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. The preamble recites in effect that a state of national emergency exists and is the measure's fulfilment of the first suggestion which I made to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on Monday. I should like to emphasize the fact that the bill is purely and simply enabling legislation, and while it falls short of what many people in this dominion think is necessary and have
914	COMMONS
Emergency Powers-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
been demanding, yet on balance and on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread at all, we on this side of the house are prepared to accept the principle of the bill and to accept the measure for what it is worth. We therefore did not debate, let alone controvert, the principle of the bill on the second reading, and we do not propose now to raise any question in that regard. Time and the course of events will prove its wisdom or lack of wisdom, its strength and its weaknesses, and whether or not the government have gone far enough or could have gone farther or not so far as they have gone. Personally I am thankful for having obtained from the government at least this measure in support of the safety of Canada, a measure which in my judgment should have been introduced weeks ago.
Section 2 of the bill provides for authority to the government to mobilize all the effective resources of the nation, both human and material, for the purpose of the defence and security of Canada. It will be observed at once that the section is in nowise mandatory. The government may or may not do anything under the bill. But having regard to the observations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his statement which preceded the introduction of the bill, and his further statement when closing the debate last evening, that effective action would be taken as speedily as possible looking to the defence of Canada at least, if not the defence of the empire, and speeches to the like effect by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) which I have had the pleasure of reading, I am prepared to think that their pledges will be implemented at least in part.
May I be permitted here to interject this one reference to the address delivered last evening by the Minister of Public Works. I have read that address with great care. I do not agree with all he said. I am afraid that he attempted to minimize the importance of the bill. But with one part of his address I am in full accord, and I am glad that he mentioned this. On page 14 of the translation he made this statement :
I do not want to resume my seat without dissociating myself from those who always place their reliance in the Monroe doctrine. I have had occasion, at the two last elections in the province of Quebec, to discuss the argument based on the protection provided by the United States. I say that it would be a mistake to place our sole trust in the application of the Monroe doctrine for the protection of the liberties of Canada and of the rights and privileges enjoyed by the province of Quebec. Moreover-
And this is the part I want to accentuate, as I believe he accentuated it himself:

Moreover, it is unworthy of a citizen of Canada, which we are pleased to call a great country, to shift our responsibilities on our great neighbours.
Let me reecho those words. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am not concerned with respect to the principle established by this bill, but I am concerned about the method of operation under the bill. The powers conferred by section 2 of the bill being wholly enabling and not mandatory, absolute authority and discretion is left with the governor in council with respect not only to what is to be done thereunder but to the whole question of method and how any given step is to be taken, and to the method of enforcement of any proposed action-


Mr. THORSON:: How could it be otherwise?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I can show my hon. friend a little later, if he will just possess himself in patience and not interrupt. And all this is to be left to the government while parliament is in session! After thoughtful consideration I have come to the conclusion that this is a most extraordinary position for the ministry to take at this time. Parliament is in session. The Prime Minister from his place in this house has affirmed and reaffirmed and reiterated the principle to which I am now giving expression. This whole question of the mobilization of the man-power and material resources of the country is so important that authority ought not to be lightly and without careful thought delegated to any minister. If parliament were not in session there might be some justification for such delegation of authority. Even then the principles and questions involved are so important and so far-reaching in their implications, involving as they do the sending of men to fight, that in such event, namely, parliament not being in session, the government would be justified in calling parliament together. But happily that is not the case to-day: parliament is in session, and it can be kept in session indefinitely to deal with just such questions as I have indicated, namely, the method by which the government shall exercise the extraordinary powers which by this bill they are asking parliament to confer upon them.
To clothe the government by order in council with power to say who shall be called to fight and who shall be exempt, how those called are to be called, and kindred matters, is an extraordinary step. It is an extraordinary power which the ministry should not ask for while parliament is in session. That seems to be fundamental. The complete lack of any machinery whatsoever with respect of the mobilization or conscription of either the

Emergency Powers-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
man-power or the material resources of the country indicates clearly to me that the measure was hastily conceived and brought down to this house in an attempt to appease the rising storm of public opinion.
Let us examine together the present position in relation to this matter. I hold in my hand what is commonly cited as the Militia Act. I find on page 6, sections 23, 24 and 25, which deal with the question of the mobilization of the militia under the authority given by section 8 and section 64. The Prime Minister alluded to this act in the course of his address last evening. I do not know when these specific sections were enacted. We were told last evening that the act itself was passed in 1868. That was a long time ago. I had the idea, though I have not had time to verify it, that the Militia Act has been amended from time to time and that it went back at least sixty or seventy years, but I did not know that it had been passed in 186S. However that may be, the provisions of section 23 provide that the governor in council-
-shall from time to time make all regulations necessary for the enrolment of persons liable to military service, and of cadets, and for all procedure in connection therewith and for determining, subject to the provisions of this act, the order for which the persons in the classes fixed by this act shall serve.
If I properly interpret this provision, it means that the governor in council shall, with respect to the persons authorized to be called by the act, have the power of enrolling those persons, collecting together the names. That of course is a necessary preliminary, but when it comes to the question of organization or completing a corps, as provided in section 24, and when men are required to organize or complete a corps at any time either for training or emergency, and enough men do not volunteer to complete the quota required, the men liable to be called shall be drafted by ballot.
If this provision was passed as long ago as 186S it would appear to me that it would probably have followed the provisions enacted in the neighbouring republic during the time of the war between the states, where they had the draft and the ballot. Anyone familiar with the history of those times will remember, shall I say, the difficulties experienced by the authorities of the union on that occasion by reason of the question of bounty, the question of evasions, and other questions of the kind that arose at the time.
I desire to call the attention of the committee to section 25, which provides that the governor in council may from time to time make regulations; and it specifies (a), (b), <c), (d), and (e)-specific subjects with respect
to which regulations may be made. This is all done under the authority contained in sections 23 and 24, which provide a method of calling by ballot. Subsection (a) of section 25 provides for the enrolment and fixing of the day on which the taking of the enrolment shall be commenced in each of the several military districts-
(b) for notifying the men liable to be taken, or those balloted for service in any quota;
(e) for finally deciding claims of applicants for exemption and for the administration of oaths before a commissioned officer of a corps;
(d)	for ascertaining the facts in reference to claims for exemption, for medical examinations and for the discharge of such men as are unfit to serve;
And finally and generally-
(e)	relating to every other matter and thing not inconsistent with the act and necessary for the enrolling, balloting, warning and bringing into service of such number of men as are required at any time.
Subsection 2 of section 25 is reminiscent of civil war days. It provides for substitutes. It is provided still in our law, under this act, that any man balloted and notified for service may at any time be exempt until again required in his turn to serve, by furnishing an acceptable substitute on or before the date fixed for his appearance, provided that if during any period of service any man who is serving in the active militia as a substitute for another becomes liable to service in his own person, he shall be taken for such service, and his place as substitute shall be supplied by the man in whose stead he served.
Section 26 provides for full period for service to be completed.
I do not advocate this method, nor does the government, as I assume from the remarks of the Prime Minister last night. In my judgment, it is antique. From its language, as I have stated, it would appear to have been copied from the laws of the United States passed during the struggle between the states. I object to the method not on account of its age but because it does not appeal to me as being sound. Indeed, I could enumerate many objections to the method. The chief is that by the ballot method the choice is left to mere chance. There is no element of selectivity about it, which appears to me to be so essential. A skilled mechanic or highly skilled technical officer might be chosen by ballot, and to take him from his position might be a distinct detriment to the safety of the state. And so I am not advocating this method. The point is one of procedure, and that is a matter laid down by parliament; and the principle has been adhered to in that legislation.
916	COMMONS
Emergency Powers-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
Now what was the position when the Military Service Act of 1917 was enacted? Parliament was in session then as it is to-day. The government of the day did not ask parliament to delegate to it the procedure and the method. On the contrary the government took meticulous care to consult parliament in every detail. Anyone who cares to do so may read the debates of the 1917 session and examine for himself what the position was and how carefully the whole question was considered by parliament itself. The government did not ask parliament for the sweeping powers asked for in this bill. The opposition of the day would have raised the roof at any such proposition, and properly so. I am not seeking to raise the roof to-day, but I am asserting that, with parliament in session, before this act is put into effiect the regulations, procedure and methods should be submitted to and sanctioned by parliament.
What was the position under the Military Service Act of 1917? The act itself recited the conscriptive provisions of the Militia Act and stated that the balloting procedure therein provided for was not satisfactory and that it was expedient to replace it by a selective draft.
Section 2 provided that "every male British subject who comes within one of the classes described in section 3 of the act, and:
(a)	is ordinarily resident in Canada; or
(b)	has been at any time since the 4th of August 1914 resident in Canada shall be liable to be called out on active service in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces for the defence of Canada either in or beyond Canada.
That was the principle laid down in section 2.
Section 3 set forth those classes of persons liable to be called out, in the order in which they would be called:
Class 1: 20 to 34, unmarried men or widowers without children.
Class 2: 20 to 34, married men or widowers with children.
Class 3: 35 to 41, unmarried men or widowers without children.
Class 4: 35 to 41, married men or widowers with children.
Class 5: 42 to 45, unmarried men or widowers without children.
Class 6: 42 to 45, married men or widowers with children.
Section 4, subsection 1 of the act provided:
The governor in council may from time to time by proclamation call out on active service as aforesaid for the defence of Canada, either in Canada or beyond Canada, any class or subclass of men described in section 3, and all men within the class or subclass so called out shall, from the date of such proclamation, be deemed to be soldiers enlisted in the military forces of Canada and subject to military law for the duration of the present war and of demobilization thereafter, save as hereinafter provided.

The act provided for the establishment of local tribunals, appeal tribunals, a central appeal judge to determine the right to exemption of persons falling within the class called out. I do not know whether the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) was here at that time-I think not-but he himself must have been familiar with this statute.
Under this act the Minister of Justice was empowered to establish local tribunals at such places as he deemed necessary, and an elaborate procedure was specified to safeguard against the possibility of political appointments to these tribunals. The chief justice of the court of last resort in each province was required to establish a sufficient number-of appeal tribunals and to assign to each such tribunal one judge of any court in such province. The governor in council was empowered; to appoint a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada to be the central appeal judge. Mr. Justice Duff, now Sir Lyman Duff, was. so designated.
These tribunals determined whether any persons in the classes called out were entitled; to exemption on any of the following grounds:
(a)	That in the national interest a mao,, instead of being employed in military service should be engaged in other work in which he was habitually employed.
(b)	That in the national interest a man, instead of being in military service, should be engaged in work in which he wishes to engage and for which he has special qualifications.
(c)	That in the national interest the man so called up should continue to be educated or trained. . . .
(e)	111 health or infirmity of the man so, called out.
(f)	If the man had conscientious objections to combatant service and was prohibited from, such service by the tenets and articles of faith of any organized religious denominational body.
Under the statute application might be made, to a local tribunal on behalf of any man who. believed himself to fall within the aboveclasses of exemption; and if it were so found by the tribunal, certificates of exemption: would be issued. Conscientious objecters were given certificates of exemption from combatant-service only, and in addition to persons obtaining certificates under this act for the above reasons, the act made the following exemptions:
1.	Persons already in the armed forces either of Canada or of one of her allies.
2.	The clergy.
3.	Those persons exempted from military service by order in council of August 13, 1873-*
I understand this refers to a sect known as Mennonites.
-and by order in council of December 6, 1898.
I am informed that this refers to a sect known as Doukhobors.

Emergency Powers-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
Section 13, subsection 4 of the act provided that unless further authorized by parliament, the reinforcements provided under this act were not to exceed 100,000 men. The act made specific provisions for penalties for persons failing to report, falsely obtaining certificates of exemption and in any other way contravening the provisions of the act.
The point I want to emphasize is that these provisions were enacted by parliament while in session and not by order in council as we are asked to do to-day. I suggest to the Prime Minister and to the government that this is still possible and should be done. I am satisfied that with two or three good officers in the department, accompanied by two or three good draftsmen-and I should be glad to lend my services to the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), because I believe that he and I could do this with the assistance of the proper officers of his department if necessary-regulations with respect to the selection of men for military service under this statute could be drawn up and brought back to the house at next Monday afternoon's session. I do not think, however, that would be necessary because the minister has competent assistants in his department; and I have so much confidence in the minister that I believe he could do it alone with the assistance of his officers, without any high-priced draftsmen or any assistance that I could lend him. Indeed, I am satisfied he could do it. The point I urge on the government is that while parliament is in session this ought to be done so that we can examine these things.


Charles Gavan Power: Does my hon. friend suggest that the regulations should be passed under the bill or that we should bring them down in a statute?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not given much consideration to that. I am not concerned about the procedure; it is the object that I have in mind. I think it could be done either way. The form is not important; it is the principle, the substance, that I am standing for. It can be done, and there is no immediate necessity for having this bill put through to-day, having regard to the fact that, after all, we who support the principle of the bill on every side of the house have to go to the country and justify it. And we cannot justify a regulation that we have not had any hand in framing.
I am not voicing a vote of want of confidence in the ministry with respect to the regulations. Some people may; at the moment I am not. I do not want anybody to get the impression that I am. I say, however, that
while parliament is in session, with respect to so important a matter as the conscription of men to fight and perhaps to die, we who are responsible for embalming that principle in the legislation of the country ought to have something to say about the method of their selection, and we ought to control if we can the question of exemption.
I can recall on one occasion during the election of 1917, when I was not a candidate but when I had to do most of the campaigning for the man who stood in my constituency, going to a rural municipality where there was a substantial vote, and when I got out there I found that every young man in that parish except the minister's son had been exempted by the local tribunal. I want to tell you, sir, I had a warm time from the boy's mother. She wanted to know why, of all the young men in that community, her son had not been exempted from military service. Of course, the fact was that one could not have uniformity in so wide-flung a jurisdiction, composed of different groups of men all over the country. In New Brunswick the jurisdiction was set up on the basis of counties. At any rate, every young man but one in the community to which I refer had been exempted because he was a farmer's son. Boys in families of three, four or five sons were all exempted. I am glad to think that most of these young men voluntarily enlisted before the clause was put into effect. That is one of the evils which might occur under a system such as the old one. Now I am going to leave that question with the Prime Minister.
Parliament is in session. Those of us who support the principle of this bill have a responsibility. I tell the Prime Minister it has not been easy to support the principle of this bill, having regard to the volume of representations I had received beforehand in favour of something more far-reaching, and the protests I have been receiving this morning that we should still have something greater. But as I said before, for the defence of Canada if for nothing else I am willing to support the principle of this bill; because half a loaf is better than no bread.
I have a word to say about the other aspect of the question-the Prime Minister himself referred to it last night, and it is important- the mobilization of the wealth and material resources of this country. What is to be done in regard to that? I am no demagogue. I am not saying that as a result of this war the rich will become richer and the poor poorer. I believe the time has come for universal sacrifice according to ability to pay. I am prepared to do my share, although I have not any too much of this world's wealth.
918	COMMONS
Emergency Powers-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
This question, along with that of the mobilization of man-power, is of fundamental importance. What is the intention of the government? I can understand in England, where the danger was so much more imminent than it is here, the necessity for taking the authority that they did on May 22, when invasion was actually threatened. They were unanimously willing to leave it to the government of the country to say what the regulations should be, not only with respect to man-power-they already had the principle of conscription on the statute books-but with respect to conscription of wealth and material resources. We are not in that position to-day. I put it to the Prime Minister and hon. members of this house as an important problem upon which we should have some discussion: What does the ministry propose with respect to the mobilization of wealth? I am not suggesting, and I would not support, the nationalization of the banks. I believe in individual effort. In peace time or in war time I am opposed to the government of this country setting up industrial plants which will compete with private industry. But I want to know what the government has in mind with respect to this important matter. The other day an hon. member from one of the western provinces advocated taxation of all the " spendable money " in the country, and the issue of interest-free bonds. I had it on the tip of my tongue to ask him what he would do about my bank overdraft. I do not want to inject any humour or comedy into this question; the matter is serious. But I have a bank overdraft of some thousands of dollars, upon which I am paying five per cent to the bank. That is " spendable money " in some form. Am I to be taxed the 3| per cent that he would impose on that " spendable money," in addition to the carrying charges?


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not spendable money; that is spent money.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think I need pause for an answer to that question. What is to be done by the government with respect to this important problem? We ought to know. If it is possible, the regulations should be drafted and submitted to parliament, and hon. members be given an opportunity to pass their opinion upon them. I am ready to sit in on any committee, and if I have had any business experience that is worth anything I might be useful on such an occasion. At all events I am willing to give gratis to this countiy and the government the benefit of any experience I have with respect to matters of this kind. But I do not think the government need my experience;

I think they will find it readily available at their hand. But I am "from Missouri"; I want to be shown. I want to know what the government's proposals are. Last night, in his speech upon which I have already congratulated him, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) used the following words; very truthful words I thought. They are found on page 895 of Hansard, and with these words I agree:
In any event, what the government is being given under this measure is the broadest blank cheque ever given to its executive by any parliament for the administration of public affairs and the safety of the sacred interests of the nation.
That is a true statement. And because it is the greatest commitment that has ever been given to a government, I say the responsibility of the government is just so much the greater. I have a right to query the administration with respect to this matter. What are their proposals? Let them take the people and the country into their confidence. I do not mind telling the house that I have already had repercussions from this very angle. This morning I received a telegram from an old friend who asked, what about hoarding, after the announcement of yesterday? He urges that unless something is done immediately against hoarding, the mobilization of wealth will drive money from circulation and from the banks into the old sock. That may well happen. I do not think there is any great danger of a flight of capital out of Canada at this time by reason of this legislation. I am glad to think that the foreign exchange control board will take care of that to the best of its ability. I believe it is doing good work. There are leaks, of course; but from all I can learn, every leak is being plugged as quickly as it is discovered. But there is the question of hoarding. I think it will be found among those who are timid, and some reassuring word might be given. There are people who have fear complexes, fear for the little nest-egg that they have. I am sure they will be found among those thrifty people in the province of Quebec. Some reassuring word ought to be given to them. I do not mean the rich and well-to-do; they need no reassurance, and their duty in the circumstances is plain.
Whatever flight of capital there has been from this country was before the declaration of war; I believe there was a substantial flight of capital from Canada before the war. But it was a considerable period before the war, and not because of the fear of war; it was due in large part to the rapidly mounting taxation, especially by provincial governments,

Emergency Powers-Mr. Mackenzie King
and especially the taxation of estates of deceased persons. That principle has been in our law for a long time; it will always be there. I hope that when the report of the Sirois commission comes before us for consideration earnest consideration will be given to the recommendation of one succession duty for the whole country. I have had many a headache over the question of multiplicity of succession duties. The executors of many an estate who have been extremely anxious to be honest and honourable have found themselves penalized not merely once but twice or thrice, having to pay double or triple taxation. There seems to be no reciprocity at all between the provinces in this regard.
I should like to observe in passing that it may be popular in some quarters to open up estates which were settled fifteen or twenty years ago, and there may be justification for it in some instances-I should think there would be justification where fraud was shown- but I should like to suggest to hon. gentlemen that this course has had an extremely bad effect in other directions. It has had the immediate effect of driving out of this country large sums of capital which is needed for the development of Canada and which would come in very handy to aid in our war effort.
It has had another bad effect. In the old days in the maritime provinces fairly substantial fortunes were made, both in commercial ventures and by the exercise of the old-fashioned virtue of thrift. Many of these fortunes, modest in most instances as compared with present day fortunes, upon the death of their owners were distributed among the educational and charitable institutions of our country. Many hospitals were the recipients of large sums of money accumulated during a lifetime of saving. To-day taxation has taken that all away, with the result that in my community at least, we are supporting our hospitals through direct taxation upon the people of the city, and we are glad to contribute to that cause. In other days well disposed people would have assumed a much larger share of the burden upon the community. That day has gone, just because of the principle to which I have referred. I must add that the blame in that regard, if any there be. does not lie within this jurisdiction.
I know the Prime Minister is anxious for this bill to become law. I suspect not expressly because of the necessities of the defence of Canada at this moment, but because in my opinion he wants to ferestall criticism. By that I do not mean criticism of the principles involved, which criticism I think he is prepared to meet, but rather criticism of the methods to be adopted in enforcing this
measure. As I have already stated, in my opinion competent officials now in the employ of the government, with the assistance of one or two first-class legal draughtsmen, could whip these regulations into shape between now and Monday. Let the government do this; let them produce the regulations next Monday and then let parliament know what the procedure and the regulations will be, because that is its proper function. Let us at least know what they are to be. I would not limit this in any degree to the mobilization of manpower which, because it involves the human element, is the most important. I would apply it also, as far as that may be possible, to the mobilization of material resources. This is not so important as the Prime Minister suggested last night, but it is important.
I have not said one word with respect to taxation. The budget will be brought down this week, and then we will know what are the proposals of the government. Then we can examine those proposals in the light of the necessities of the occasion and the capabilities of the nation.
Now I invite the Prime Minister to take the house into his confidence and tell us just what procedure he has in mind under this section. If he has the principles in mind I have no doubt in the world that those principles can be reduced to writing and examined in this house, where they should be examined and to which it is the duty of the government to submit them, instead of taking the greatest blank cheque parliament has ever given to any government, even in an extreme emergency such as we are now facing. In the past I have heard about blank cheques. That was a day of economic warfare, and objections were raised then. Now we are up against something a great deal more difficult; I admit that, but the principle involved is the same.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I doubt if I am able to recall the several points mentioned by my hon. friend, but I think I got the general drift of his remarks. As I listened to him it seemed to me that all of them might pretty well be answered by saying that what he regards as applicable to the present government is equally applicable to the British government with respect to the measure which was enacted at Westminster, on which our measure is based. When Mr. Attlee introduced the bill giving emergency powers to the British government, in addition to the great powers the government already had, the British parliament was in session. It was expected that parliament would be in session from day to day from then on; that fact was known to all hon. members. Notwithstanding that fact Mr. Attlee asked
^20	COMMONS
Emergency Powers-Mr. Mackenzie King
*on behalf of the government of the United Kingdom that they be given powers of mobilizing human and material resources which would be as extensive as, in fact almost identical with those set forth in the present bill. There was no suggestion in the British house that any regulation made under that *enabling measure should be discussed in the House of Commons or the House of Lords before it was taken, and the reason is wholly apparent. The reason is that any action that will have to be taken under this measure will *of necessity be of such an emergent character that it might defeat the whole purpose of the legislation if the government were obliged to wait for a discussion on a particular regulation before it was passed. Moreover it would disclose in advance the means being taken to cope with a critical situation, to meet which might require the utmost secrecy. This house adjourns on Friday night until Monday. What may transpire between any Friday and any Monday no one in this house *can say, any more than they could have anticipated what has happened between a Friday and a Monday in Great Britain. But the length of time the British legislation has been on the statutes has shown, I think, the wisdom of giving to the government in London the opportunity of taking immediate action with respect to any situation that might arise at any time, and of placing thereafter before parliament at the earliest *opportunity the regulation that was made.
The bill now before the committee itself contains a provision that at the earliest possible moment parliament shall be informed of the regulations that may be passed under it. Section 5 of the bill states:
Every order or regulation passed under the authority of this act shall be tabled in parliament forthwith if parliament is in session and, if parliament is not in session, within two weeks of the opening of the session next following the making of such order or regulation.
What is the procedure that would be followed? If a regulation were passed under this measure to-day that regulation could be tabled at the next sitting of the house, tomorrow. In the action it might wish to take the government would be well aware that any regulation passed might become immediately the subject of discussion, and would not be tempted to pass any regulation unless it thought there was full justification for it. If parliament adjourned on Friday night the regulation if passed on Saturday would be tabled on Monday. But I venture to say that if the situation on either of our coasts should become anything like it has become on the coasts of some countries in the

old world, there may be need for the passing of a good many regulations between a Friday night and a Monday, which I submit it would be impossible for parliament to discuss before they were enacted.
In this matter it is very easy to say, "Oh, yes; parliament should deal with all these things." Every time I have asserted the authority of parliament as being supreme over the ministry; every time I have expressed the desire to keep parliament informed in all particulars, I have based what I have said on my belief in the wisdom of the British system and methods of government. No parliament in the world is more zealous of preserving the liberties of the individual citizen than is the parliament at Westminster. But if the parliament at Westminster has found it necessary to ask for special powers to meet an emergent situation in a time of war it has done so, not with a view to destroying in any way the liberties of the individual, but rather to seek to preserve them in the most effective way possible.
And it is exactly on the same basis that the government of to-day is asking that these powers be given to it. It is for exactly the same reason that we are asking that this enabling power be given to us to deal with an emergent situation.
I believe my hon. friend has over emphasized one particular aspect of this measure. Anyone coming into the house and listening to the discussion would have thought that we had before us a bill with respect to conscription, and conscription only. My hon. friend dwelt at some length upon a comparison between this measure and the military act passed in 1917. That act had to do only with the conscription of men, and, moreover, conscription for overseas service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Both.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it had to do with both. But the references my hon. friend has made to tribunals and the like all had their particular bearing on the matter of overseas service. Nobody had in mind at that time the necessity of the young men of this country having to defend their own country on the soil of Canada itself. Parliament was discussing what was essential in connection with sending of more men overseas -conscripting them to send them overseas to do service in Europe. This bill does not touch conscription overseas, beyond setting forth that its provisions shall not be applicable to conscription for overseas service. That is a most important distinction to be kept in mind in any comparison which may be made between legislation with respect to conscrip-

Emergency Powers-Mr. Mackenzie King
tion passed during the last war, and the measure before us. It is altogether a mistake to designate this measure as primarily a conscription measure. It is a measure with respect to the mobilization of human and material resources.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You can skate over that thin ice all you like, but this is for conscription of men and materials.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I repeat that it has reference to the mobilization of human and material resources-in other words is applicable to the entire resources of Canada. It does not relate to men only. It relates to every phase of the economic, financial and social life of the Dominion of Canada.
In that particular may I say that here again it follows exactly along the lines of the British measure. And in this connection, since there has been frequent reference to Mr. Attlee, I have gone to the trouble of preparing a brief statement which sets forth essential features of the British measure, as Mr. Attlee saw and presented them to the British House of Commons. I refer to Mr. Attlee's remarks at this point in order to make clear that it is exactly the same sort of thing that is contemplated under this measure. Speaking on May 22 Mr. Attlee said he did not want anyone to jump to the conclusion that all of a sudden everybody was going to be ordered to do something different from what he was doing now. The essential thing in an emergency was that everybody should continue at his job until he was ordered to do otherwise. What was proposed was that there should be control over persons and over property. The Minister of Labour would be given power to direct any person to perform any services required of him

to prescribe the terms of remuneration, the hours of labour and the conditions of service. With regard to conditions and pay, it was proposed to cany out wherever they existed industrial agreements which had been arrived at already, and wherever such agreements had not been arrived at to observe the rates normally paid by good employers. If people were required to shift from one district to another, there would be payment for that, et cetera.
Dealing with control over property, Mr. Attlee said that some establishments would be controlled altogether right away. Others might be controlled later. They would, in effect, be working on government account. Other establishments might be ordered to carry on, perhaps at a loss-for which apparently remuneration would be given. There might be cases where firms would have to close down with interim compensation.
There would be control of the finance of the country and of the banks. It might be done centrally, or through regional commissioners and financial advisers.
The Minister of Labour had been given the responsibility of supplying the labour required for the programmes of the various departments. He proposed to set up a production council consisting of representatives of the chief government departments concerned with munition supplies. A director of labour supply would be set up, training facilities would be established, et cetera. What I have set forth illustrates the scope of the measure as it was put through. It gave the government power to deal with any and every situation which might arise at a moment of great crisis or emergency.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Is it the intention of the government to do what has been done under the bill in Great Britain? If so, then it removes a great many of our objections.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reply may I say to the hon. member that already the British government has done certain things under this act, and I have no doubt it will do many more things under it. What they have done under their authority has been what they deemed to be necessary in view of particular situations at the time they arose. It is precisely the same sort of thing that this government purposes doing. When my hon. friend the leader of the opposition asks me to tell him all the government purports to do under the measure he knows very well I cannot begin to give an encyclopaedic reply to that question, because the powers which will be exercised will be so exercised as occasions arise. One day there may be something which affects labour, from the point of view of observation of its standards. It may be that on another day there may be something with respect to the manufacturing of particular commodities. Another day there may be something with respect to matters of finance. The action taken would be dependent upon what situation may arise, and how it may be most effectively met. In order to have the powers as broad as possible they have been made all-inclusive, to include the mobilization of human and material resources. Thus far in Great Britain, although they have had a situation with which fortunately thus far we have not been faced, they have not found it necessary to exercise many of the additional powers granted. But from day to day new situations arise, and the government is able to meet those situations by having the necessary powers to do so already in its hands.
By way of illustration we may find that within a few days some attack may be made
922	COMMONS
Emergency Powers-Mr. Mackenzie King
upon our own coast. We might wish to direct a branch of industry of this country to perform a function which would necessitate helping to meet that situation in an extremely rapid manner. In tiying to deal with a situation of the kind on a moment's notice we might be confronted with some employers who would be wholly loyal and anxious to do all they could, and we might meet with others who would wish to bargain, to learn what particular profits were to accrue before any step could be taken. Under the provision of this measure au individual could be told by the government of the day that he is to serve the state, not merely from the standpoint of profit. There would be authority here, were it necessary, to make him do what we are asking.
As I said yesterday we will exercise our powers in the light of our responsibility to parliament. The country will know that whatever we do will have to be done with the full knowledge that on the afternoon of the day on which it has been done, if parliament is sitting on that day, the whole question may be reviewed publicly in the house. I believe under those circumstances there is every reason for feeling that whatever powers may be exercised will be exercised with due regard to the preservation of the liberties of the individual, so far as they can possibly be preserved in a crisis.
May I add these words: I feel that already through headlines in the press, and I would say the same of the speech of the leader of the opposition this afternoon, the impression has been left that the measure is in reality little else than the old-fashioned measure of military conscription. I say it is nothing of the kind. I wish to make it perfectly clear that the mobilization is intended to provide men for all kinds of war work, of which service in the military forces is only one. As is natural at this early stage of the discussion, there seems to have arisen a different impression in many quarters. It is important therefore that I should make it quite clear that the essence of the measure is that the government is to be empowered to direct the men and the material equipment of this country into the work most urgently needed in the present crisis. That, I believe, may just as well require that some men go into the factories, farms and training centres as into the armed forces.
An hon. member on this side of the house made the statement publicly this morning that he felt he could go into his constituency and, by making it known to his constituents that this measure had to do with the protection of Canada and our own Canadian soil, bring forward in a very short time men from

the forests, from the fields and from the factories, all prepared immediately to join the Canadian forces to resist any possible invasion, and that he would be prepared to guarantee that that could be done in constituency after constituency throughout the country, once it was understood that there was the necessity of defending our own Canadian shores. I pointed out to him that in doing that he might be making the greatest mistake possible with respect to the national interest; that, to win this war, we might wish to keep at work in the forests the men who are now working in the forests, to provide the timber which will be required for docks and wharves and required immediately; that the men who are working in the factories may be a thousand times more useful to the government of this country in giving their skilled labour to the manufacture of aircraft, munitions, or other weapons of war than they could possibly be in lining up and presenting themselves for military service; equally that on the farms, if we are to perform what will be expected of us, we shall need all the production that can be effectively and rapidly carried out on the farms of our country.
As the situation has developed, it will be necessary for the British isles to look more than ever to Canada for supplies of many kinds, for food, for munitions, for aircraft, and a great variety of other things. No longer can Great Britain hope to get some of these supplies from any other country of Europe, nor indeed can she hope to receive them, via the Mediterranean, from Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. The one route above any route in the world which will have to be kept open is that which runs from the mouth of the St. Lawrence to the ports on the western coast of Great Britain. The efforts of Germany will be directed more and more to blocking that route, to cutting it off, in order that Britain may be starved of food, munitions, equipment and much else. Does not that raise a problem which this government will have to face, as to how we are to get men to do, in the way they should be done, the things which are required before all others and will give the greatest immediate service? I contend that that cannot be done unless the administration has enabling powers which will put us in a position where, if we see that a certain course of action rather than some other is urgently necessary, that particular course will be taken.
This measure does not mean that the manhood of Canada as a whole is to be conscripted at once, that every man in the country is immediately to be put into uniform and shoulder a rifle. The moment may come



194C

[Stage Direction]
Emergency Powers-Mr. Lacombe
when it will be necessary to call out the young manhood of the country to help save our soil because of invasion. We pray that that day may not come. On the other hand it may come, and we want to be sure that, if anything of the kind ever happens, those who will be called upon to serve will be properly trained and will know how to perform their duties as soldiers defending their own country. This measure gives us the opportunity to call out, in such numbers and at such times and places as may seem wise, the men between certain ages for the purpose of training, so that when, later on, it may become necessary to put them into active service, they will know how to perform at least the elementary duties of men in arms.
I submit that, if all this is clearly understood, there should be a disposition to allow the government the discretionary power which is absolutely essential when measures have to be taken in very quick order with respect to situations which an hour before were not known, and that there should not be any effort to limit the government's power in that particular by placing any false emphasis upon the exceptional powers which this bill will give to the administration.
Mr. LACOMBE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, since the amendment I moved to the bill at present under discussion has been ruled out of order, I have decided to move the adoption of another now that the house is sitting in committee on the same legislation.
Before proceeding with this motion, I believe it my duty to draw the committee's attention to the fact that the Militia and Defence Act remains the same. Section 64 of this Act has not been amended. That section reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may place the Militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
In view of this Act and for the reasons I have already mentioned, I wish to restate my opposition to this bill.
I am not doing this because I derive pleasure from it, Mr. Chairman, but because it is my duty to do so. No one, no matter what high position he occupies, can prevent me from freely speaking my mind. No one in this house, no matter how powerful he may be, can force me to betray the mandate I hold from my constituents. This mandate from a free and honest people rises way above the insinuations and insults directed last night at those members whose only crime has been the fulfilment of their duty, their whole duty-


Mr. JEAN:: Your whole duty?


Liguori Lacombe: -as they understand it. I would like to point out to the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Jean) that I am speaking for myself, and that I respect his own opinions.
We shall not cease, notwithstanding anyone, to glorify the heroic resistance of our old motherland, France, nor to proclaim her valour, her pride and her nobleness, for France, in whose soul lives an ideal of justice, of beauty and of courage, will see her sublime sacrifice magnified in history.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Will she stand alone?


Liguori Lacombe: We shall never cease admiring and deploring at the same time the glorious martyrdom of France. We shall do so freely and without restraint as the worthy sons of a heroic mother.
I wish to state that the Canadian people were odiously deceived during the federal election of March 26 last. The matter of conscription, even for the defence of the country, was at no time submitted to them. Neither was it submitted to their representatives, except on extremely short notice. The members, like the people, were caught by surprise and unprepared. Why this attitude worthy of the dictators against whose policies the democracies are now embattled?
Moreover, I am convinced that if the government had made an urgent appeal for volunteers to defend Canada, there would have been no need to introduce this execrable and loathsome conscription measure.
" Let us forget the past " was the appeal made last night by a member of the cabinet. No, a thousand times no! The past is the entire sacred history of a people. To lay it aside would be a betrayal. We are not prepared to consummate such a felony. In spite of the insults and inept remarks of certain persons, we shall pursue without faltering our difficult course. We shall no more give way to threats than did the constituents of Laval-Two Mountains and their member before a band of hoodlums and criminals who tried to steal the ballot boxes on March 26 last. I leave it to the house to judge this disloyalty toward an opponent who was not really one. I leave it to the hon. members to judge this disloyalty toward one of their most undaunted defenders during the last twenty years.
It will be stated, as it has been said over and over again, that we are opposed to the defence of Canada. That is absolutely false. What we cannot support, however, is the obvious contradiction between this bill and section 64 of the Militia Act. What we cannot support is this sudden reversal of the

Emergency Powers-Mr. Lacombe
government's policy and its failure to appeal first to the people for volunteers to defend Canada. What we cannot support is the government's failure to submit the present measure to the approval of the Canadian people during the recent election campaign.
No, we are not opposed to the defence of Canada, but we claim that full advantage should first be taken of the possibilities of the voluntary enlistment system. We also claim on behalf of the people the opportunity and the sacred right to express their opinion on this measure through a plebiscite. Moreover, we demand that the Militia Act be amended so as to apply solely to the protection of our territory. Those who blamed us in this parliament a few hours ago, forget that the man who voices these views served in the army during the last war. Some people quickly forget the sacrifices and the distress of others. Whatever happens, we will stand our ground and continue to defend at all times and everywhere freedom, justice and right.
The right honourable the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said that the first duty of a citizen is to defend his country. I agree with that. For four years I have opposed any increase in the military estimates because the government persisted in refusing to amend the Militia and Defence Act; such was, besides, the gist of every objection I raised before.
That money was to be used solely for the defence of Canada. I need not recall what has happened.


Vincent Dupuis: That is true.


Liguori Lacombe: As the hon. member who is my desk-mate says, that is true. It is evidenced by the facts. Let us study the history of these later times. I shall not state facts known to everyone; it would be a loss of time. But I wish to say that as long as the government persist in refusing to amend the Militia and Defence Act, my attitude shall remain unchanged.
At a time when the United States are enforcing the Monroe Doctrine, is it fitting that the Canadian Parliament should enforce conscription in Canada even for the defence of her territory? Has anything been done to ascertain what response the Canadian people would make to the authorities if the Government appealed for a greater number of voluntary enlistments? I am asking that question because this measure is exceedingly serious. Consequently, I have the honour to move, seconded by the honourable member for Quebee-Montmorency (Mr. Wilfred Lacroix):
That all the words after "whereas" in the preamble of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:	"the government's war
policy must be free and voluntary."


Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Chairman, I have the honour to second the motion moved by the hon. member who-has just resumed his seat.


Thomas Vien: It is moved by the
hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), and seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lacroix):
That all the words after "whereas" in the preamble of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "the government's war policy must be free and voluntary."
I call the hon. member's attention to standing order No. 76 which says:
In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.
Standing order No. 58, paragraph 2, says:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
The committee is presently on a section of the bill, and I must declare out of order an amendment to the preamble of the bill at this stage of the proceedings.
The committee would no doubt like to know what has been done. The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) has proposed, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lacroix)-there is no necessity, I might point out, for a seconder of amendments in committee-that all the words after' the word "whereas" in the preamble of the bill be struck out and replaced by the following words: "the war policy of the government must remain free and voluntary." I have drawn the attention of the hon. member to standing order 76, wherein it is provided:
In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.
The proposed amendment being to the preamble, it is out of order, because the committee is on section 2 of the bill.


Mr. PICARD (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, the hour is grave, the international situation is deteriorating rapidly. I do not wish to prolong the debate and to delay the passing of the bill, but it is such an extraordinary measure that I feel it is my duty to explain my position.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I have to challenge your ruling.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:

Emergency Powers-Ruling
When the committee was considering section two of Bill No. 43, an act to confer certain powers upon the governor in council for the mobilization of national resources in the present war, Mr. Lacombe moved an amendment: " That all the words after 'whereas' in the preamble of the bill and in the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor: 'the government's war policy must be free and voluntary'." The chairman ruled the proposed amendment out of order, on the ground that it could not be moved when section two of the bill was under consideration, and that under standing order No. 76 the preamble is first postponed and considered after every clause has been passed on. Whereupon Mr. Lacombe appealed from the ruling of the chairman.


Georges Parent: The question before the house is: shall the decision of the chairman be confirmed? Those in favour will please say aye, those opposed will please say no. In my opinion the ayes have it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Have a vote.


Louis-Philippe Picard: Mr. Chairman, words are rather useless at the present moment.

Emergency Powers-Mr. Picard
The vote just registered proves better than all that could be said the national unity on this subject. It is not my intention to speak at length. I only want to say a word on this government bill. We have said throughout the country that we were opposed to conscription for service overseas. But the bill presently before the house is for the mobilization of capital and man-power for service in Canada. The vote just taken shows that the people of all Canada will approve of the government's decision to mobilize the forces of the nation for the defence of the country, without distinction of race, classes or provinces.


Mr. CHURCH:: I shall not detain the house for more than a few moments, but I should like to find out the principles upon which this bill is based. The leader of the opposition read the sections of the Militia Act in which there is a form of conscription, providing that the militia may be called out for service in or beyond Canada-I refer to sections 63, 64 and 66 of chapter 132 of the revised statutes of Canada. Under section 66 the governor in council may place the militia on active service, if parliament should be adjourned, and parliament must be summoned within fifteen days thereafter.
This matter was discussed in the special war session. Those who went to enlist at the Toronto armouries did not know what they were enlisting for. There was a good deal of confusion. They could not learn whether they were enlisting for home defence or for service overseas, because the government of the day had not asked for any contingents. I brought the matter up in the house last September and it was clarified then.
There is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the young people who want to serve their country. They do not feel it sufficient to fight a war for democracy or to fight a war to end wars, but they are willing to fight for freedom, for religion, for the mother country in her hour of peril from invasion. I contend the principle of the bill has never been explained properly. The governor in council is being given very wide powers, powers which in fact have never been given before anywhere. They are virtually taking all the powers exercised by the House of Commons; the executive can do as they please, over the heads of parliament and the people.
The governor in council would have absolute control of the press, despite the fact that we know that one of Hitler's proudest achievements in Germany has been the suppression of the press. In the dictatorships there is no such thing as a free press. That is a very

dangerous situation. Much difficulty was experienced at the time of the great war in connection with defence regulations drafted by the governor in council. And yet, under sections 2 and 3 of the bill we are to have in Canada the principle of conscription of military, naval and air forces for home defence, whatever that is or means, and the governor in council will have arbitrary power to impose penalties, as any dictator would do, without trial, for the violation of any of these provisions. I contend that no such power as that, in the present situation, should be given to the governor in council, until the people of Canada know the meaning of this bill.
Let us remember that the principle of this measure aims at home defence, and that is exactly what Hitler was depending upon. In a speech he made some time ago at Berchtes-gaden, quoted last fall by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), he said he believed the dominions would not come to the support of the mother country. He believed they would insist upon their status, upon separation, and things of that kind. And so I say that the war is not going to be decided because of the passing of this bill. Its passage will not stop Hitler in his march to world hegemony. The defence of Canada will not be decided at Vancouver, at Quebec, at Montreal or Three Rivers. It will be decided in England, and on the English channel. Great Britain is now left all alone to carry on the fight. She is surrounded, because, as in the days of Napoleon, southern Ireland may be a back door through which Germany may [DOT]attack Britain,
Even the most enthusiastic supporters of this measure cannot say that it will do one iota of good, so far as stopping Hitler is concerned. In my opinion this war will be decided in the next three or four weeks, long before a man can be trained under this act; and if Great Britain fails now, then civilization is at an end, and we can have nothing but darkness in Canada and in the world; life will not be worth living.
Everything we have in Canada we owe to the motherland. Everything we have by way of freedom, civilization and liberty we can thank Britain for. In matters of defence on land and sea and in the air we have looked to her. I do not believe the young people of Canada want to fight for home defence or act as policemen or home guards. It hurts recruiting a great deal to have it said that a contingent went to Iceland or is to go to Greenland's icy mountains. One contingent went to Siberia in the last war, and it was the recruiting for that contingent which helped to kill conscription and to kill

Emergency Powers-Mr. Church
voluntary recruiting. Our young people will not give up their jobs for nothing. They want to take on Hitler and his vassals at the gates of Britain. They want to fight Hitler and the other dictator in foreign fields. They do not want to stay at home and act as guards, and all that kind of thing. We realize that home defence is important, but it is not nearly as important as service in the old country. We know that in England they are only twenty miles away from the guns. When I hear the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) and other hon. members criticizing what Great Britain has done, when I hear them say that Great Britain has let France down, I answer them in this way: it is one of the most outstanding events in all British history the splendid way in which Mr. Chamberlain gave able and inspiring leadership over a period of two years. And consider Britain's wonderful record so far in the great war; consider all that has been accomplished which it took so long to accomplish in the last war-unity of command on the western front; the instant action of the royal navy in taking command of the seas and of the royal air force in taking command of the air; the heroism of these forces, unparalleled in history; the close economic alliance with France; the swift mobilization of our man-power, all achieved quietly, smoothly and efficiently. Consider also the gigantic and difficult problems of home defence, the organization of supply, the suppression of profiteering, the control and equitable distribution of foodstuffs, the evacuation of civil populations. Is it any wonder that the whole civilized world has been thrilled by it? I say that this record has no parallel in history.
The mobilization of man-power has been mishandled by the government. All voluntary recruiting-on again, off again-is a half measure. As was urged last September by some of us on this side of the house, this measure pf aid to Britain should have been brought down at that time. We are always too late in everything. The government have acted only after pressure to do their plain duty, that of executing their war trust. That should have been done without any urging on the part of the public or soldier organizations. But since parliament they have been forced to act, through weight of public opinion. Their policy in the last year has been nothing but one of following the line of least resistance. In fact, that seems to be the parliamentary religion in this House of Commons all the time. But after matters are stirred up, the government goes to work, and of course it will claim credit for stopping Hitler, if that can be done.
With regard to this meaningless bill, how are we going to stop Hitler with measures of this kind, or bills or blue books or orders in council? Hitler does not give a snap of his finger for any home defence measures like this we may take. We have four thousand miles of border, and no army, air force or navy of any kind to defend it properly. We seek to defend Iceland, but cannot even defend Canada or her cities or towns.
May I at this point offer a tribute to the glorious manhood which has enlisted in our army, our air force and our naval force. They have done glorious work, and history will so record it and have written a new page in courage and chivalry. But in its present defensive position Canada cannot protect its own territory, or its shores, as it is supposed to do under the useless statute of Westminster. In my opinion the government has been too late, not ten times, as I said the other day, but nearer twenty times too late in everything from recruiting an overseas force to the empire air scheme or equipment or trying to stop Hitler.
If the government intended that its policy should be one of home defence, then the country should have been informed of that policy last September. If Hitler comes up the St. Lawrence, or appears here in the city of Ottawa-and I may say the Germans are not very far from our shores now-and if Great Britain fails, what will our home defence amount to? Where are our barracks to come from? Where are we to get our uniforms, our equipment, our tanks, our rifles, our instructors to train this army or home guard? Where are our defences? How are we to drill this home army? Why, it will take two years to train it. We will require two years to get ammunition, clothing and equipment to make any pretence at defending our own shores, let alone that of the United States or Iceland. We talk of home defence only. That is what we seem to be doing, despite the fact that this war is going to be decided in the next sixty days over in the English channel and the mother country where our only home defence is.
Even if this bill is passed, we do not know to whom this country will belong at the end of the summer, or in a few weeks if Britain fails like France. I am surprised no proper steps were taken by the government until the house met and the matter was forced upon them in the house and by public opinion as a result of the fall of France. Too late again! Undoubtedly first of all the government will have to make a survey. No doubt that will be the basis on which the army will be formed. I protest against a condition whereby young people who want to fight, and who do not

Emergency Powers-Mr. Church
want to stay home all summer, or enlist for home defence, must wait around until this survey is made and then be conscripted for a meaningless, useless thing called home defence. They want to go overseas. They want to help Great Britain, the mother country. They want to fight the enemy at Britain's gates, not here. As I view it, this bill is based on home defence and neutrality, the cardinal principles of our defence policy as given out last year. I believe it is closely involved with the policy of protecting north American neutrality, and we have an indication of that in the government's Iceland policy and their well known pan-American states' policies. How does it come about that our expeditionary force which enlisted to fight Hitler, has been sent up to the icy mountains of Iceland, and possibly to Greenland's icy mountains, when we have not enough men to protect the province of Ontario or, in particular, the Niagara district, if an invasion were attempted?
Our young people are not going to fight for any policy like that. I believe in conscription as a principle, if we are going to have conscription for all the people, not just some people while others are exempted. As a matter of fact, we would not have needed it, if the government had done its duty a year ago and since the war began. Under a voluntary system of enlistment we could have had 600,000 men from coast to coast, clothed and equipped for overseas service. But that was not done. This is a limited liability war, a secret war, and the government has been too late every time in what it has done. Delays are dangerous.
During the last election campaign ministers of the government from Quebec were saying, "We will never belong to an administration which brings about conscription for overseas service or conscription." Yet they do. In answer to me the Prime Minister himself said in the House of Commons that Canada never again would send an expeditionary force, and that any dictator or foreign danger to Canada from Europe was only minor in degree, and secondary in origin, and that we had enough domestic problems of our own first to settle. We heard the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Works say that so far as they were concerned they would resign and would not belong to a government which enforced conscription. Well, the very principle of conscription is in this bill here and now. All law is conscription. Probably not one-third of the population would send their children to school if the law were on a voluntary, and not a compulsory education basis. All public health laws and, in fact, all law constitutes compulsion. Every country in the 
world has conscription of man-power to-day except little Luxemburg, with its small number of two hundred and fifty men to meet the Hun at the gate, and Canada and the United States.
Hitler is not going to be beaten or destroyed by any stay-at-home force of home guards. It will take more than home guards to defeat him, or Mussolini, or Stalin. There are now six million men under arms in Germany, and if Britain fails overseas, no government in Europe or on the American continent will be able to withstand him any longer and home defence here will be at an end. Hitler is looking for world hegemony and domination. H Britain is defeated the next German demands will be made on Ottawa and Washington. And what are we doing here? We are sitting here debating a bill which, when section 2 is passed, will be of no effect whatever to stop the dictators, because section 3 makes section 2 inoperative, and man-power is only conscription for home defence, whatever that is.
Canada has not been pulling its weight in the boat, and Britain, to her sorrow, knows it. To-day Britain is surrounded and fighting this battle all by herself, with no proper help from those who have been so far only offering ringside advice, while it is the truth that others act the part of the Levite, passing by on the other side and refusing to assist France or any other small country except on a cash-and-carry basis. France failed because any help came too late.
The policy announced by the government at the last two sessions here has been one of isolation, status, and dependence on the Monroe doctrine and on pan-Americanism, but Washington appears now to be unable to do much at once to help, and the United States cannot protect even its own shores, let alone Canada, and stands idly by, while France is destroyed and the very existence of Britain threatened. Yet we have been told over and over again in this house that the United States would protect us from the dictators.
The young red-blooded Canadians I know are turning out in large numbers to join the air force. They are not going to enlist, conscription or no conscription, for home guard and policeman's or other stay-at-home duties when these dictators are at Britain's gate, when these barbarians who have destroyed France are preparing to destroy the mother country-the richest prize for which Hitler has been contending, the objective sought before him by the kaiser, by Bismarck, and three generations of Germans in the past seventy years: the despoiling of Britain forever and what she stands for-religion, freedom and liberty.

Emergency Powers-Mr. Church
This bill does not commend itself to the wisdom and judgment of the country. The last three years have seen nothing but a series of wasted opportunities all along the line. We have been too late on many occasions; we were too late with the aid force plan; we are too late as regards the purposes of this bill, or munitions, or food, or clothing, or recruiting. The bill provides no more than a mere semblance of conscription; it is a useless, meaningless thing. We have discussed this matter before, and I have asked the government what is their plan. Apparently one part of it is a censorship of the press of this country which will prevent them doing their duty in this great emergency. When all is said and done, the press is the protector of the rights of the citizen. The acid test of the effectiveness of a newspaper is how it reports the House of Commons. We find this session that the chamber might as well have met in secret except for the treatises which have been read here daily regarding the principle of the war. It is a fundamental tenet of democracy that the press has a status in this country, and that in a double sense: it is an intermediary between the government of the day and the people, and it provides a channel whereby the people may know what is going on with regard to the war effort of the government. The press is the only means whereby the man in the street can have his grievances remedied, and the only place where people can learn what are the policies of the government and the opposition. I protest against giving the government power by order in council to abolish the freedom of the press, to impose a censorship on all the editors in the country, and to limit their usefulness. Criticism is a tonic. Our newspapers did great work during the last war, not least in upholding the morale of the people. Few of them did not help the government and fulfil their trust well.
The government of the day has been given wider powers by section 2 of this bill than any of its predecessors. I do not believe that the people are at all satisfied with the bill, and I again protest against giving the governor in council such powers. If the house is not to rise to go to another place I should like to add a few other remarks. Is the committee now to rise?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope we shall be able to get through with this bill before six o'clock-if that is what my hon. friend means. If we cannot do so, I would ask that the house consider sitting after six, because we shall not be meeting to-night. I think we ought to get through with this bill to-day.


Thomas Vien: Shall section 2 carry?


Thomas Langton Church: If it is the desire of hon. members to rise, I am satisfied. I want to help all I can. I have some real objections, though, to this procedure by order in council. I saw the result of it all in the last great war. It hurt recruiting, it hurt Canada's effort, it led to conscription. The censorship which was laid on the press was not in the best interests of the country or of the conduct of the war. I believe that had the government of the day properly carried out a campaign of voluntary recruitment, they would have had no occasion in 1914-18 to force anybody to do his duty.
The menace of the dictators has been with us for a long time. Could the government not have foreseen nine months ago what might happen to France? They have been getting advice continuously from the British government. They knew that Hitler had five or six million men in arms. They knew that France was holding the Maginot line almost alone, and they should have known that neither the Maginot line nor any other fortification will last forever. Yet what did they do? They would not pursue a policy of adequate recruiting, although, as soldiers' organizations have shown, they could have enlisted five or six hundred thousand men.
There is no desire on anyone's part to do other than encourage and help the government. Probably other speakers wish to contribute to this discussion, and I will only repeat my protest against this way of doing business, by giving to the governor in council such wide powers to impose rules and penalties and all that kind of thing.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few words to add to the remarks I made yesterday evening. I had asked to be granted a short delay, a few hours in which to consult my constituents and I have done so with the kind assistance of my wife. Their reply was as follows: Provided the wording of the bill were such as to give positive assurance that it granted powers to be exercised solely in Canada, I should vote in favour of the measure. I am happy to have been able to consult my electors. I owed them that much because, if I consider them intelligent at election time, I still think them intelligent enough to have faith in them and to consult them while I represent them in this house.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Would it be in order to suggest to the Prime Minister that we adjourn at the regular time, meet again at eight o'clock and carry on to-night, instead of continuing after six o'clock? We of this

Emergency Powers

group have not counted upon having the Prime Minister keep the committee in session after six o'clock in order to finish this debate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let us carry the bill now.


John Horne Blackmore: There are several
things I wish to say about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to crowd the committee in any way, but may I say to my hon. friends that this evening, when we get through with the house, the cabinet will meet and will be in session because of the matters we have to consider, probably from eight o'clock or eight-thirty until eleven or twelve o'clock to-night. That was why I hoped the house might see its way to get through the measure by continuing after six o'clock. If, however, hon. members feel that they have things which they must say I think we ought to adjourn at six o'clock and go on to-morrow. I should, however, very much like to have this measure go through to-day, for reasons that must be fairly evident.


John Horne Blackmore: I think probably it would be wise in the circumstances to adjourn and go on to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot be responsible for what may happen to-morrow or for the need there may be for this measure to-morrow. I say to the house at the moment that I wish very much I had some powers under this measure now with respect to some action that I should like to take this very afternoon. However if my hon. friend wishes to wait until to-morrow that is his privilege.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think this debate should be concluded as soon as possible but after what the minister said over the air last night in French to his compatriots in the province of Quebec there does not appear to be very much necessity for this bill being put through to-day. I have just seen the translation of what he said. You cannot ride two horses at the same time.


Charles Gavan Power: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is not here, but I have some knowledge of what he said. As I recollect it, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) made a statement over the radio which he hoped would prevent the country from being unduly alarmed, and as I understand it the Minister of Justice gave a translation of the same statement in French.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The translation I saw-


Mr. CLEAVER:: Withdraw.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who said withdraw?


Hughes Cleaver: I did.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Keep your seat. You are not in this.


Charles Gavan Power: I think my hon. friend would be the first to appreciate the motive of both ministers in saying that they hoped the country would not imagine all sorts of things were going to happen immediately upon the passing of this measure. They tried to give the country a note of assurance, which I think was very much needed in view of the rumours that were started about what was to be done under this measure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
bound to say that the piece I saw was taken out of its context, and I know how dangerous that may be.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the hon. member got it there?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; but the inference was that the minister was making one statement in this house and a statement of an entirely different kind outside, and I wondered about that.


Charles Gavan Power: In the minister's absence I undertake to deny anything of the kind, no matter what my hon. friend saw.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not in a position to enter into a controversy about it, but that was the impression left on my mind. I repeat that I think this bill should go through and I am willing to expedite its passage. Nobody can say to the contrary. What I said this afternoon I thought I was in duty bound to say, and I am not retracting any part of it. This bill ought to go through and the government should give evidence of its bona fides by acting under it. I have no desire to delay the passage of the bill, but I should not like to shut out discussion.


Mr. ROY:: I should be pleased to give in English a translation of what was said on the radio last night by the Minister of Justice.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Let us have it.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I will give the translation.
To appease all uneasiness and apprehension it only needs, I am sure, to give the assurance that these new powers, if granted to the government, will only he exercised if in the interest of the national security of Canada it becomes necessary to do so. This assurance, ladies and gentlemen, I give to you in the most emphatic way, and do not listen to rumours to the contrary as anyone who spreads these rumours is harming the national cause.
It is evident that my hon. friend's intention was to give his hearers the impression that this law might not be enforced.

Emergency Powers


Charles Gavan Power: That is your comment. That. is not the translation.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I have it in French and I will read it to the house in French. I have quoted from the text.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not deny the text
because I wrote it myself. I helped to write the text in English for the Minister of Finance to deliver over the radio in order to reassure people who might otherwise make a run on the banks. The statement had no connection whatsoever with the mobilization of man-power.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: It was presented by the Minister of Justice over the radio in such a way as to tell the Quebec people that conscription may not be enforced in Canada if the need is not apparent. We understood it very well. The Minister of Justice was still gambling with words, and in such grave times as these I find it very strange that the men in whom this country should have confidence are still going out to make such statements-


Charles Gavan Power: On a point or order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is imputing motives to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, who happens to be absent from the chamber. I have told him on my responsibility as a minister of the crown that I had something to do with the writing of that speech and the words quoted by my hon. friend. It was a speech delivered by the Minister of Finance in the English language and a translation was made for the Minister of Justice in the French language. The statement referred only to matters relating to the financial provisions of the bill and was intended to quiet the uneasiness of persons who might have thought that their savings in the banks were to be taken by the government immediately. I will say more. If my hon. friend will go to the broadcasting corporation and get the text delivered by the Minister of Finance in English, he will find that it was identically the same statement as was delivered in French by the Minister of Justice. That ought to clear it up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will with me.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Why was not the statement made in the House of Commons by the Minister of Justice last night?


Thomas Vien: 
Joseph Sasseville Roy: No.


Thomas Vien: At any rate the statements made by the hon. member were out of order. It being six o'clock, I must necessarily report progress unless by unanimous consent the committee desires to carry on and pass the bill.


John Horne Blackmore: My opinion is that there is so much to be discussed it would be inadvisable to try to carry on past six o'clock.


Thomas Vien: Shall I report progress?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carry on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If one hon. member objects, the committee cannot carry on.


Thomas Vien: Unless there is unanimous consent the rule is imperative.


Major James William Coldwell: I have no objection to carrying on to-night and getting the business through, but last night, and in the press to-day, we were castigated for having called a recorded vote and so delayed the passing of the bill. This afternoon the Prime Minister and his colleagues on the government side called for a recorded vote, which delayed the proceedings by exactly the same length of time as the recorded vote did last night. But there is this difference, that last night eighteen voted for the point of view we took and to-day two voted in the opposite direction to the Prime Minister. I resent the remarks of the Prime Minister directed at this group last night because of our having asked for a recorded vote yesterday.


Thomas Vien: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is out of order. Unless the leader of the social credit group withdraws his opposition I have not the unanimous consent of the committee. Does the hon. gentleman withdraw his opposition?


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I
certainly would not delay the proceedings of the house. We could go on until nine o'clock, but I can assure the house that what our group has to say will take but little more than three-quarters of an hour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I be allowed to say a word in reply to my hon. friend with respect to the vote this afternoon? I thought, and I still think, that the time has come when the country should know exactly where some men stand on all-import-
The Governor General

ant measures such as this. For the best of reasons I was not prepared to leave the impression that there were any members other than one or two who would support the amendment and who were not prepared to support the bill. For that reason I asked that the vote be taken.


Thomas Vien: Shall I report progress?


Mr. ADAMSON:: Why not carry on for another hour?
Progress reported.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, with your
permission and that of the house, I should like to make an announcement to the house in respect to a matter in which all hon. members are interested.
I am happy to be in a position to inform the house that the Governor General designate, the Right Honourable the Earl of Athlone, and Her Royal Highness the Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, have arrived in Halifax this afternoon.
The Earl and Countess of Athlone were accompanied from England by the secretary to the Governor General, Sir Shuldham Redfern, the Honourable Ariel Baird, lady-inwaiting to her royal highness, and Captain T. R. C. Goff, aide-de-camp.
Upon arrival in Halifax this afternoon, the Earl of Athlone and the Princess Alice were met by the Under-Secretary of State, and by members of the staff of government house. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, the premier of the province, and representatives of the defence services and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, were also present.
The Earl of Athlone and her royal highness and their party are proceeding by special train to Ottawa. It is expected they will arrive on Friday morning at 11.30 o'clock, daylight saving time.
Upon the arrival of the special train at the station in Ottawa, the Governor General designate and her royal highness will be met by His Excellency the Administrator and members of the government. The ministers of foreign powers accredited to Canada, the commonwealth representatives, the mayor of Ottawa and the members and associate members of the defence council will also be present.
In view of the gravity of the international situation it has been thought appropriate that

the ceremonial features in more normal times associated with the installation of governors general should be reduced to a minimum. Accordingly, arrangements have been made for the installation and swearing-in of the Earl of Athlone to take place immediately following arrival in the capital. The official party will proceed direct from the railway station to the senate chamber where the ceremony will take place at twelve o'clock noon.
Hon. members and others who are to be invited to the ceremony of installation, will shortly receive printed copies of an official programme which has been prepared for the occasion.
The reason that I have made no special mention of hon. members being present at the station is that, as the installation ceremony is to take place in the senate chamber, probably most hon. members will prefer to remain at the parliament buildings and have their places in the senate when the governor general designate arrives.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 20, 1940