WAGE CEILING


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table of the house order in council P.C. 1549, of February 27, 1942, amending the wartime salaries order and consolidating these and former amendments with the original order.
Standing Committees

The principal new amendment relates to war industries only, and gives the Minister of National Revenue power to permit, in specific cases and within prescribed limits, the adjustment of the salaries being paid to some individuals engaged in those industries, where there is good cause for such adjustment within the general principle of maintaining unchanged the generally prevailing rate for a given set of duties and responsibilities. There is also a provision for the adjustment of probationary rates of salary being paid to those who have been recently appointed or promoted at less than the normal rhte for the work they are doing. The recitals of the order explain the purpose of the new amendments, which I have had marked in the copies to be tabled.



STANDING COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of general importance, and I crave the indulgence of the house and ask it to bear with me for a few minutes while I elaborate what I have in mind' as briefly as possible.
Yesterday the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) asked the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) if the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would be referred to a special committee which might investigate all questions relating to the policy and management of that corporation and the minister promised that consideration would be given by the government to that suggestion. While the government is giving such consideration, I should like to have an associated but more general situation considered.
Each year the annual report of the Canadian National Railways is referred to a select special committee of this house and the affairs of that railway are investigated, but this house does not give annual consideration to the problems of other government corporations which stand in the same relationship to this house as the Canadian National Railways. My suggestion is that it become the annual and automatic practice that the reports of the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be referred to committees of this house in the same manner as the report of the Canadian National Railways. The report of the Bank of Canada falls naturally under the jurisdiction of the standing committee on banking and commerce and I suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King))) and the house that we establish a rule
[Mr. Usley.)	.
that that report shall each year be automatically referred to that committee, so that the committee may review the policy and management of the bank.
There is no standing committee to which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is nhturally appurtenant. We have a standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, which formerly did a great deal of work, but which to-day has practically nothing to do. In addition, each year we appoint a select special committee on Canadian National Railways accounts. My suggestion is that we abandon the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and also the select special committee on the Canadian National Railways and create a new standing committee to be called the standing committee on communications and that each year the annual reports of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be automatically referred to such committee, so that the policy and management of these corporations may be subject to parliamentary review.
The creation of these government corporations in the past few years has raised an important problem of parliamentary control. In the recent past we have not exercised in respect of them the immediate and' direct control which we have over government departments whose estimates must come before us. I believe it is time that we assumed that measure of control which is necessary in *the public interest and I make these suggestions to the house, that the reports be automatically referred to the committees to which I have alluded, believing that it. is the best means of reasserting our right to control of policy and management and the best means of assuring that the public interest is appropriately safeguarded.
These corporations are government-owned and are operated for the government. They operate on the taxpayers' money. The day-to-day management is removed from government control, but the policies of each must of necessity reflect government policy. That I think is true. Therefore it follows that the peoples' elected representatives should 'be afforded the opportunity of reviewing their operations and policies. I urge the government to conform to this view and refer the annual reports of these corporations to appropriate committees.
There is another aspect of this matter which is worthy of consideration. The reference of these annual reports to the suggested appropriate committees would afford to the membership of this house a useful outlet for their abilities. There is, I think, a sense of frustra-

Precious Metals Marking Act
tion in the minds of the members. They are not given under present conditions an opportunity to take the part in the national effort which their position, their abilities and their desires warrant.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I warmly support all that I heard of the statement just made by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). I have suggested during the past few years that we should refer the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation periodically to some committee, but I believe the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition is in every way a better one. As the enterprises of the dominion expand1 and government ownership of public corporations increases, I think it is more essential than ever that there should be some parliamentary inquiry into the operations of these corporations. Now that we have the national railways, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Bank of Canada, and the Trans-Canada Air Lines, it seems to me that as a safeguard these corporations should be thoroughly looked into by the membership of this house. I am thoroughly of the opinion that such public corporations, while they should be subject to parliament, ought to be as they are now, corporations removed from political interference and control, but subject to parliamentary inquiry. I warmly support the suggestion of the leader of the opposition.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, without
wishing to be held too closely to exact approval of all that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has suggested, I find myself in sympathy with the point of view he has expressed, and which has also been expressed by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. It is true that there has been of late an increase in the number of government corporations and government-controlled corporations. There is every reason why parliament should at all times be free to exercise its right of inquiry into matters of public concern and especially matters which affect public expenditure. I would wish to look carefully into the suggestion of my hon. friend and discuss it with my colleagues before making a further statement.



PRECIOUS METALS MARKING ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the orders of the day the leader of the
opposition referred to an order in council which was passed on February 23 in connection with the Precious Metals Marking Act. The hon. member asked why an amendment to the act was not brought down covering the subject matter of the order in council at the same time as other amendments to the act.
I would point out that the amendments made to the Precious Metals Marking Act by Bill No. 4, passed on February 23, are permanent alterations to the act. The amending act was planned and drawn up weeks age* and was actually given its first reading in the house on January 28. The particular matter dealt with by the order in council is an entirely different matter and was an emergency requirement due to the freezing of supplies of tin as a result of the far eastern situation. Manufacturers of silver plated hollow-ware are in the position of being unable to obtain tin due to the government restriction of this metal, and some provision had to be made immediately.
The order in council is effective only for the duration of the war and six months thereafter, and then automatically lapses. If the act had been amended to provide for this situation, not only would delays have occurred but a further amendment would have been necessary after the war to reenact the section suspended. Enactment by order in council allowed immediate action and avoids further amendment to the act after the war.
The change brought about is purely an emergency measure.



POSTAL' CENSORSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) brought up for a second time the subject of censorship in relation to the censoring of letters of members of parliament and also as to the possible use of excerpts taken from communications which had been censored. I stated at the time that I would have a full inquiry made into the whole subject and report to the house later.
I wish to express my thanks to the leader of the opposition and to other hon. members for not having made inquiries from day today as to why this report was not being made immediately. I have been amazed at the amount of information which it has been thought necessary to place at my disposal and which I have been obliged to go through in connection with this subject; but having gone through it all, I have come to the con-
Censorship o} Members' Mail

elusion that there are very strong reasons why, on the subject of censorship, too much should not be said in public. I am therefore going to suggest to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group and the leader of the Social Credit group that they meet with me at some convenient time when I would be pleased to place before them different aspects of this question which have come to my attention.
Censorship, it will be recognized, is a phase [DOT]of war activity, and if it is to serve the purpose for which it is intended, matters *connected with it must necessarily be kept very largely secret. However, I wish at once to say to hon. members with respect to the censoring of letters of members of parliament that we in Canada thus far have not begun to go as far as they have in Great Britain.
' I think it can be shown that the censorship of letters of members of parliament in Canada is at the present time on quite a restricted basis.
I wish to say further that such censorship as there is being or has been exercised with regard to members' letters has related only to matters that are of immediate concern to Canada's war effort or to the war effort of the United States or Great Britain or to that of some of the allied countries. There has been no attempt on the part of the censors, as far as I could ascertain, to seek for any information other than that which had an immediate relationship to some war activity.
With respect to references in letters to political matters I have been informed that the censors have had very explicit instructions. Not only have they been instructed to pay no attention to matters other than matters affecting the war, but I am informed that in fact they have carefully refrained from passing on any information in any letter that related to political matters. Nothing of the kind has come to the government from any source. It has been ignored entirely.
I believe a question was asked by my hon. friend the member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), which brought an answer from the Postmaster-General (Mr. Mulock) which seemed to imply that excerpts generally might be taken from letters and sent to heads of departments concerned. But if the entire question and the entire answer are read together, it will be seen that the only excerpts that could be taken from any letter to be sent to the head of any department were excerpts which related to some matter pertaining to the war. I am assured that such was the intention of the reply, that such in fact has been the case, and
TMr. Mackenzie King.]
that nothing has been taken from any communications and sent to the heads of any departments of the government from censored letters other than what has related to war activities in one form or another.
The question came up in the course of discussion a day or two ago whether a certain locality was included in a defence area. Well, that question helps to illustrate the point which I am making of the necessity of the government being very indefinite about what is said on this subject of censorship. If a defence area were specifically mentioned-as for example, Halifax, a defence area-and it were to be stated that the boundaries of that were at a certain radius, immediately persons interested in sending communications in a manner which would avoid the censor would, simply go outside of the area so defined and mail their communications there. That is one of the instances which help to illustrate why it is not possible to give the house full and exact particulars in regard on details of censorship.
My hon. friend also asked that the regulations regarding censorship should, if possible, be tabled. Well, that, I must say, is not possible. If they were tabled they would reveal information which relates to the United States and Britain as well as to Canada, and would certainly give sources of information or knowledge to the enemy which he should not possess.
These are some of the points which have come out of a careful study of the question. But I would add that I do not know of any aspect of the censorship matter which should not be communicated to the leaders of the parties if it will help to give confidence to hon. members as to the method in which the censorship is exercised, and I shall seek to arrange for that when we have our interview.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to
the Prime Minister for the statement which he has made, and which, of course, is intended to be reassuring. I would like him and the house to feel that I appreciate that censorship is an essential part of war activity. I have never controverted that principle. I do not see how it would be possible to carry on the war without it. I will reserve any other remarks on this matter until the conference is held; perhaps I shall then have a better appreciation of the whole position. But it is naturally an irritating thing to find that a letter-a political communication, if you will, and rather harmless -had been opened by the censor although it did not come from a defence area. That is all that I have to say on this point at the moment.

Easter Adjournment



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask, without anticipating an immediate answer, a question of the Prime Minister which he and the government might be turning over in their minds. It has been represented to me by some hon. members that they would like to know what are the plans of the government with respect to the Easter recess. Especially interested are those members who live a long distance away and who do not get home very frequently; they would like to lay their plans for a return to their constituencies during the Easter vacation. Will the Prime Minister indicate at an appropriate time upon what date it is anticipated this house will adjourn for Easter, and how long the Easter recess will be?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be pleased to give my hon. friend an answer within a day or two. I might say at once that the government has had in mind an adjournment of at least a fortnight at Easter. It will not be a brief adjournment, but one sufficiently long to enable hon. members who are some distance from Ottawa to return to their homes. In that connection we have been considering what, in connection with the taking of the plebiscite, might also be of advantage. Some little time ago I had a hope that the taking of the plebiscite would come about the time of the Easter recess and that the recess might be made sufficiently long to enable hon. members to speak on the plebiscite, not only in their own constituencies but elsewhere if they felt so inclined. It looks now, I am afraid, as though it would not be possible to have the Easter adjournment sufficiently long to cover the period which will intervene between Easter and the taking of the plebiscite. At any rate I hope that the Easter recess may serve as an opportunity to hon. members to have their constituents informed of their point of view in relation to the plebiscite. I speak of that as being among the reasons why the government has had in mind a somewhat prolonged adjournment at Easter.



MILITARY TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: I want to direct a question to the Minister of National War Services. At this time, when the production of maple
sugar is about to begin and the production of vegetables is under way in hothouses, will the minister continue to call farmers and farmers' sons for military training?


Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):: I am afraid it will not be possible to meet the request that the calling of men for military training should be suspended. The divisional boards have power to hear applications for postponements. Each board has jurisdiction to grant a postponement order when it is of the opinion that it is in the national interest to do so; and in the case of certain occupations, such as that of agriculture, the board is required to take into account the supply of labour which is available and the importance of the individual's occupation to the national economy. I am sure that the boards will take into account the matters to which the hon. member has referred when they deal w'ith applications for postponements.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I have received letters to the effect that certain claims for bonus have been passed at Edmonton and forwarded to the treasury board for payment but that no settlement has yet been made. Could the minister explain the reason for the delay?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agri-mlture):: The plan which has been followed n connection with the making of wheat acreage reduction payments is that the Department of Agriculture shall have made inspections and rendered reports to the treasury officials, by whom, of course, the cheques are issued. Naturally, before those payments are made, there is a check with other reports which have been rendered by the fanners who have made the applications. This check is made with the prairie farm asistance returns and with the permits which have been issued by the wheat board, on both of which there are statements with regard to acreage. To speak in general terms, I would say that when the first applications came in, about forty per cent-I am speaking now from memory-of the applicants had returns on 1939 and 1940 and 1941 which were all alike.
They stated their acreages as the same for 1939, on returns made in 1941, as they did in 1939 and there was no difficulty about making these payments. Practically all these pay-
Prairie Farm Assistance

meats were made in the months of July and August and probably early in September. In about sixty per cent there were some differences. A great deal of checking has been necessary in order to explain why a man put in a different return in 1939 about the 1939 acreage from that which he put in about the same acreage in 1941, or with regard to the 1940 acreage, as the case might be; and it has been in an attempt to justify payment on the basis of the 1941 declarations which were sworn to that there has been some delay. There were 186,000 farmers who made application, and 182,000 of them had been paid about $27,000,000 down to the end of last week. Most of these have been paid their full amount, but at a recent date there were between 20,000 and 35,000 whose claims still [DOT]had to be adjusted. Some of these adjustments are still being made. I think it will be agreed, however, that even if there are some
20,000	or 35,000 applications still outstanding, in which there is twenty-five per cent unpaid and with regard to which some adjustment must be made before payment, and some four or five thousand cases where no payment has been made at all, a real effort has been made by the organization, both in the treasury and in the Department of Agriculture, to get the payments out as soon as possible.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: I wish to address some questions to the Minister of Labour. Over the week-end I was invited to attend a meeting of the automobile workers union at Windsor where they were discussing the question of union recognition in the Motor Products plant. I found a meeting of some 7,000 automobile workers protesting against the treatment which the workers of the Motor Products industry had received. My questions are: 1. What knowledge has the minister of this situation? 2. Why was the request for a conciliation board, made to the Department of Labour on December 6, not granted? 3. What does the Department of Labour propose for the settlement of that difficulty in order to avoid its spreading to other essential war industries in that section?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The strike took place while Mr. Louis Fine of Toronto, who acted as industrial disputes inquiry commissioner to look into the dispute, was at Windsor. It was illegal

under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act and under the orders in council establishing the industrial disputes inquiry commission. The employees were so informed. They indicated their willingness to return after the illegal strike. I sent a personal wire to the management suggesting that they be reinstated. The management replied that the employees in question had gone on an illegal strike and they found it was necessary to lay off some people, and they did not require their services at this time. Mr. Louis Fine is in Toronto to-day in connection with the matter in an effort to reach a satisfactory conclusion.



REPORT OF TRANSFER OF ONTARIO HARD ROCK MINERS TO NOVA SCOTIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Following up the question raised yesterday with reference to the proposal to transfer men from Kirkland Lake to Nova Scotia, the minister yesterday stated that he had no knowledge of that situation but would make further inquiries. Has he any further information on the question now?


Humphrey Mitchell: I had further inquiries made into the question raised by the hon. members for Cape Breton South and Inverness-Richmond. These inquiries have been made through the employment service of Canada, and it is reported by that service to me that no such transfer of miners has been suggested or arranged through the employment office. Judging from the inquiries made this morning, by the official of the department located at Kirkland Lake, the information is quite untrue. No such movement has been suggested by anyone. I hope that answers the question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: By anyone?


Humphrey Mitchell: By anyone.



SHIPPING


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: I wish to ask a question but I do not know to which minister it should be addressed. In a London newspaper dated about four weeks ago there appeared a statement that owing to shipping losses parcels sent to Great Britain from overseas will be very greatly restricted and foodstuffs will not in future be permitted. I was astonished that I had seen no reference to such an order in the press of Canada and I have been unable to find out whether there is any truth in it at all or whether it is merely a canard.

Plebiscite Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I have no personal knowledge of the matter. I am informed by the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock), who has looked into it, that he has thus far received nothing of a definite character to confirm what has been represented, but I shall speak to my colleagues in the defence departments and to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) in an endeavour to get an exact answer.



JAPANESE NATIONALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: Yesterday on the orders of the day the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) asked a question which I advised him at the time I would inquire into, and give an immediate reply. It arises out of an advertisement that appears in the newspaper British Columbian published at New Westminster, which advertisement was signed by the representative of the custodian of enemy property. The particular paragraph to which the hon. gentleman called attention reads:
Offers for fishing boats, if accepted, will be those from bona fide fishermen of fishing companies who are entitled to own vessels of Canadian registry.
On inquiry I find that the word "of" is a misprint. It should be "or", and1 instructions have been given to the paper to correct the impression created by the advertisement.



EVACUATION FROM PACIFIC COAST DEFENCE AREAS

Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: I wish to
direct a question to the Prime Minister or to the minister most directly concerned. It has to do with the evacuation of Japanese from Pacific coast defence areas. Have the British Columbia security commission and advisory committee, recently established to handle the evacuation of Japanese from Pacific coast defence areas, been authorized to handle the orderly disposal of Japanese businesses, and if not, is it the intention of the government to set up a special agency for that purpose? Further, what is the government's policy with regard to the handling of Japanese businesses which cannot be conveniently or immediately disposed of?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member asks two questions. One relates to government policy, and with respect to that I can only say that government policy will be made known in due course. With regard to the earlier portion of
the question, which relates to the present position and work of the British Columbia security commission, I would say that I intimated to the house a day or two ago that great care had to be taken with respect to the powers given the commission and details relating to its work. The formal order has not yet been passed; it will, I expect, be passed tomorrow. In the meantime government departments are carrying out part of the work, and the proposed members of the commission have been conferring on the matters that the commission has been appointed to administer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the
Prime Minister in a position to give the names of the other two members of the commission, and of the advisory committee which I understand is to be set up, and the scope of their duties?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The other commissioners will be the assistant commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Commissioner Mead, and the assistant commissioner of provincial police of British Columbia, Mr. J. Shirras. The chairman is Mr. Austin Taylor. The names of the advisory committee I might give to the house to-morrow.



PLEBISCITE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. 10, respecting the taking of a plebiscite in every electoral district in Canada and the taking of the votes at such plebiscite of Canadian service voters stationed within and without Canada-Mr. McLarty-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 3-Limitation.
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Last evening when the Prime Minister was speaking on this question he stated, as appears on page 969 of Hansard:
This question has been before the house since the house opened, and until to-night the language of it has not been questioned. . . .
I take exception to that statement, because the wording of the plebiscite was questioned when the resolution was before the house; in fact I questioned the wording of the plebiscite as well as the general ambiguity of the whole thing. I went so far as to offer an amendment which will be found at page 797 ' of Hansard, the last part of which read:
-provide that definite direction be sought from the people on all national issues submitted to them under the terms and provisions of this proposed Plebiscite Act.
Plebiscite Act

The intention was to remove the ambiguity of the wording of the question to be submitted to the people. There can be no doubt as to the ambiguity; I think even the Prime Minister himself will admit that now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me read the wording:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
In the first place, as I pointed out the other day, the government are not asking to be released from anything; they are asking the people if they, the people, are willing to release the government. The government are not committing themselves to anything whatsoever. It was pointed out as well that the wording of this question refers definitely, as the Prime Minister pointed out last night, to the commitments or obligations restricting the methods of raising men for military service. Both the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister stated yesterday, I believe, that they were agreed that under the National Resources Mobilization Act legal authority is given the government to raise men in any manner they wish.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Pardon
me; under the War Measures Act they could raise them by any method.


Charles Edward Johnston: I thank the hon. member for the correction, but I think they can under the National Resources Mobilization Act also. But the method is not the thing we are worrying about. The method might be that which the government now use, asking men to appear before a medical board for examination. On the other hand they might say they are going to send the mounted police out to take them by the collar and bring them in. That is a method; whether or not it is a right method is not the point. The wording of the plebiscite deals with the method of raising men. Nobody is criticizing the present method.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It deals with commitments as to the method of raising men for military service. There was no commitment with respect to the use of the mounted1 police.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is the point. There is tremendous ambiguity in the wording of the question proposed to be used in the plebiscite. If hon. members themselves are not clear as to the meaning, how can the public be expected to be clear on it? I suggest to the Prime Minister that 
in all fairness this question should be put to the people in such manner that there will be no shadow of doubt or possibility of misunderstanding. If the Prime Minister wants to be fair with the people of Canada he should put the question to them in such form that they will know what they are doing. They should know definitely whether they are voting on the commitment or on the methods. A large number of hon. members are satisfied that the wording of this plebiscite deals with the methods.
The Prime Minister has said there are sufficient men offering for the air force and the navy, and1 that they are going along quite well in regard to men for the army. Therefore there should be no objection as to the method they use. Whether or not the method is a proper one is not the point.
When I was speaking on the resolution I pointed out that the Prime Minister had never in his speech at the beginning of this session made reference so far as the plebiscite is concerned to the conscription of men for overseas service. I went through his speech very carefully in an attempt to find whether there was any connection between this plebiscite and conscription for overseas service. I combed the speech pretty thoroughly, but I failed to find any reference to conscription of men for overseas service. In fact the Prime Minister said1 that the question which was to be put before the people had nothing to do with conscription. He made that quite definite. Let me read his words as reported on page 826 of Hansard:
Hon. members have been talking about conscription, about no conscription and the like. That is not the issue in this plebiscite.
There can be no misunderstanding about that. I think the Prime Minister was quite right there. If I can interpret his thoughts I would say he had no desire whatever to bring up the question of conscription for overseas service so. far as this plebiscite is concerned. That is what I tried to point out the other day. But now, apparently, the Prime Minister has changed his mind. Let me read what he said on February 2. He was speaking about the commitments made in the election of 1940. There is no question, as he pointed out, that the pledge given to the people was that there would be no conscription for overseas service. I think we are all agreed on that. Certainly in my constituency I was the one who was accused of advocating conscription for overseas service, which was quite untrue. Nevertheless, that was the issue there; that was the commitment that tied the hands of the govern-

Plebiscite Act
ment. This is what the Prime Minister said in this regard, at page 970 of Hansard:
The commitment was a commitment restricting the methods of raising men for military service. The restriction was as to raising men by conscription for military service overseas.
I think he is right there, but on the other hand, as I just pointed out, on February 25 the Prime Minister said that conscription was not the issue in this plebiscite. Surely one or the other must be so. On February 25 the Prime Minister said conscription was not the issue; on March 2 he says quite definitely that it is the issue, though he calls it a commitment. Then he goes on to say:
It is that commitment that the government is asking to be freed from.
That is the commitment in regard to the conscription of men for overseas service. That is what I want to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out to the Secretary of State a moment ago. Then, a little further on in the Prime Minister's speech of yesterday, he said:
The commitment was not made with respect to the protection of our own shores; it was made with respect to sending men overseas; everyone so understood iit, and it was to that extent that the law and the fact was limited [DOT]and that the government at the present time is limited.
Definitely the government are asking the people to release them from the commitment given in 1940, for political purposes, so that they can and presumably will put in conscription for overseas service. If that is so, then for the life of me I cannot see why the Prime Minister should object to putting in the words, definitely and clearly, so that every voter will understand what he is voting on. The thing about which I am concerned is that the people should know exactly what they are voting on, and I can tell you, sir, and the members of this committee quite plainly that if the question comes up for conscription for overseas service as such, and only such, I shall vote against it. I am definitely of the opinion that we can never prosecute this war with a maximum war effort until we have the conscription of our financial institutions so that we can issue currency and credit in terms of public need. Every minister of the crown who has spoken has laid the blame for the situation on the production end, and as I said the other day I think they are perfectly right. The thing I am concerned about is the manufacturing end of it. What is [DOT]done with the guns and tanks after they are manufactured I am quite ready to leave to the discretion of the Minister of National Defence, because I think he is better able to direct their use than I could. But the thing
we have been discussing and the thing on which we cannot get any information is this all important question of production, which is tied up definitely with finance. I do not want any misunderstanding on the question as far as I am concerned. I am certainly not in favour of the further conscription of manpower until we have a complete mobilization of war industry and finance, and certainly that has not been done yet.
Surely if the Prime Minister wants to be fair on this question, not only to members of this house but to the people of Canada whom he is asking to vote on it, he should not object to the amendment as worded by the hon. member for Macleod, since the Prime Minister himself now says the main issue is for conscription overseas. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Macleod would have the question read:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service in any theatre of war.
There the Prime Minister has what he wants; there is no question about it. The only words to be added are "in any theatre of war." Surely there could be no objection to that. The Prime Minister says the main question is with regard to the commitments. All right; it is there. Surely he cannot object to that; surely he cannot object to putting it into the wording of the plebiscite, upon which the people are going to vote. I cannot possibly see why the Prime Minister or anyone else should object to this amendment, so that everyone may know what he is voting on. I feel sure that since the Prime Minister has reviewed the situation, he has come to the same conclusion.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Chairman, I have tried to keep out of this discussion, because I thought the sooner we got this bill through the better for all concerned. But I cannot understand why the government could not accept the inescapable logic of the position which was placed before them last night by the hon. member for Macleod and others.
I am one of those who have taken the position that the Prime Minister, along with most other hon. members of this house, did give a definite commitment to the Canadian people; and that they, and the Prime Minister and his government in particular, have a right to use whatever method they think fit and proper to be released from that commitment. But I ask the Prime Minister to look at the question again. What was the commitment? Was it with reference to the method of raising men, which is what the plebiscite says? The question as framed says:
Plebiscite Act

-arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service.
If the commitment was given with respect to the method of raising men, then the government should have taken a plebiscite in June, 1940, because at that time the government embarked upon the policy of compulsion, so that now we have the two methods.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not for overseas.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the
point I am coming to. The method of compulsion was adopted, and this house voted for it almost unanimously. But the Prime Minister himself has just said that the commitment was not with respect to that question. The commitment was with respect to the disposition of the men who might be raised. No commitment was ever given by the Prime Minister or any other member of this house, so far as I know, that conscription would not be introduced in this country for home defence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The commitment was that any men conscripted in this country would not be sent outside Canada or the terrtiorial waters thereof. Therefore the commitment which the government is asking to be relieved of is not concerned with the men but with the disposition of the men raised by a particular method. To me the logic of the position is very simple. The government would make the thing perfectly clear by accepting the amendment and adding the words "in any theatre of war." This would make it plain that the commitment was with respect to conscripting men for overseas service, and that the commitment the government ask to be released from is a particular commitment, namely, the commitment not to raise men for service outside of Canada.
May I say just a word with regard to the second point included in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod. Like many others who have spoken, I am greatly concerned about this plebiscite. I am greatly concerned as to what will be the effect if it is defeated, not only the effect on the morale of the Canadian people but the effect on the other members of the united nations. I think it would be one of the most appalling things that has happened during this war. Personally I will certainly do all in my power to see that it is not defeated in any place where I have any influence.
The government itself can do more than any group of individuals to determine whether or not this plebiscite will pass. It seems to me that there is one very effective step the government can take. The Prime

Minister at some time prior to the taking of the plebiscite can say to the people of Canada that he is prepared to give a solemn pledge that if any contingency arises which makes it necessary for the government to bring down to the house legislation to conscript men for service overseas, no such step will be taken unless it is accompanied by a much more drastic policy of conscription of accumulated wealth and the mobilization of the country's industries and financial institutions than has so far been taken by the government. This solemn undertaking on the part of the Prime Minister would do more to get a large affirmative vote than any effort by any group of individuals, no matter how enthusiastic or aggressive they might be.


Mr. ROY:: I should like to say a few words on the wording of the question which is to be put by plebiscite to the people of Canada. The Prime Minister last night in the course of discussion of the amendment of the hon. member for Macleod admitted that we have in fact as well as in law all the methods for the recruiting and mobilization of men, but the reason for the plebiscite is to release the government from its commitments in connection with conscription for overseas. He has strongly emphasized this point, and it would seem that now it is a matter of where the men are to serve rather than how we are to proceed with mobilization. Therefore the question on the ballot would surely be more adequate for the purpose and more frankly put to the people if it were in the manner suggested in the amendment. However, as I am opposed to the principle of the bill itself I regret to say that I shall vote against the amendment as well as against the main motion.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Chairman, it would be an easy matter for the government to place on this ballot the following question:
Are you in favour of conscription for service overseas ?
The answer could be given yes or no. I shall vote against the principle of this bill and I shall vote also against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod. I have always been opposed to conscription for overseas service, and this measure is a step toward conscription. The hon. member's amendment does not improve the situation. It does not summarize the ballot shown in the bill. In spite of the hon. member's good faith, the amended ballot would still be longer than the one now included in the bill. Once more I object to the government measure and to the amendment. I have always been opposed to conscription, and I remain so with all my might.

Plebiscite Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that there is an amendment before the committee. Would you read it, Mr. Chairman?


The CHAIRMAN:: Mr. Hansell has moved that the following words be added to the question appearing on the ballot: "in any theatre of war."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First of all, a word as to the question itself. The wording of the question was given the most careful study by the government in order that there might be no possibility of its having any meaning other than the one which appears upon its face. May I say, speaking of questions generally, that if hon. members are anxious to read into a question something other than what really is there, nothing in this world can prevent them from so doing. I venture to say that however differently worded the question might be, some hon. members would find equal objection to the new wording as proposed.
It has been suggested that we add the words "in any theatre of war." I have an objection to this, which I think hon. members will see immediately I express it. It would raise at once in the minds of a number of the people of this country a suspicion with regard to what the government has in mind, a suspicion which so far has not entered their minds. Some of them would begin to say "Oh, yes, we see what the government have in mind; they want to send our people, not merely to Great Britain, but to India, to Asia; they want to send them to other far distant quarters of the globe." No thought of the kind was in the mind of the government at the time the question was framed.


Robert Fair: What is in the government's mind now?
Mr.'MACKENZIE KING: It will decide what it will do with respect to the disposition of troops when it has full authority to act in the light of all the circumstances.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is admitted that the government has authority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Full authority; moral authority as well as legal. My hon. friend the leader of the oposition throws back his head when I make mention of the word "moral," as though parliament had no moral obligation, as though the government had no moral obligation of any kind. I am afraid those who take that particular point of view are being unduly influenced by the nazi mentality and by the mentality of other nations that have thrown to the wind every obligation that may have existed between the people and their governments. I speak expressly of the
nazi position because the whole nazi policy is one that is based on broken pledges, one that is based on no faith in the pledged or promised word.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I resent that implication.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend may resent it, but he has laid himself open to it. The people of this country are going to view very carefully the attitude of hon. gentlemen who say that the government has no moral obligation to the people in regard to a matter that affects their lives and which only a few weeks ago many of them were claiming was responsible for the return of the government to power. I regard what has been said by the government of this country with respect to commitments for overseas service as something that is an obligation of the most sacred character, and for that reason I intend to stand by it and the government intends to stand by it. We know that in so doing we will at least be helping to keep the confidence which exists in political institutions in Canada between the people of this country and their government, a confidence which has been completely lost in a great many other countries at the present time.
I am anxious to see this plebiscite carried. I am not anxious to add to its wording words that are going to create unwarranted suspicions in the minds of people who may be mostly attracted by certain words and attach to those words an entirely different meaning from that which should be attached to them. In that same connection may I say this? I cannot understand the attitude of hon. gentlemen who say they are anxious to see this plebiscite carried but who at the same time by their utterances-and I refer particularly to the leader of the opposition-are doing the utmost they possibly can to have the people of this country believe that there is some trick in the plebiscite which is being put before the people of this country. The leader of the opposition said last night that I was deliberately trying to fool the people, and yet he says he wants to see this plebiscite carried. Do you think people are going to turn out and support the plebiscite if they have reason to feel that they are being asked to lend themselves to some trick which the administration is seeking to put over them? I cannot understand the attitude of my hon. friend in taking that position, especially in view of what he has said in this house on more than one occasion this session, and for which I thank him. I thought he meant what he was saying when he was speaking as he did about attaching importance to the sincerity
Plebiscite Act

and honour of the Prime Minister with respect to a statement which he made in this house. My hon. friend said:
I have never questioned the honour of the Prime Minister, as he knows.
A little later he said:
Certainly I had no intention of questioning the Prime Minister's bona fides. I am glad I raised the question, however, because it is now certain-
The question was the question of the plebiscite, the wording of the question and the insertion of the question in the bill. The government had met him on all these particulars, and then he said he was pleased that the whole matter was now certain, and that he never questioned the meaning I attached to the words. Yet last night, just because a few members of the Social Credit group wanted to have a chance to talk about finance in terms of public need, and to bring their particular hobby into this question, thereby confusing the issue still more, my hon. friend evidently thought the chance of making a little political capital was too good to miss, even in this time of war. Though this question of the plebiscite is a very important one, he evidently says to himself: "I cannot miss this chance; I will have to join with them."


Mr. GRAYDON:: The right hon. gentleman is imputing motives to the leader of the opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He is telling the exact truth with regard to the situation. Let me read what the leader of the opposition said. I think I have been courteous in my treatment of the leader of the opposition. I have never said to him at one moment that I believed what he was saying, and the next moment that I did not believe it, that I thought he was putting a trick over on the people. In the matter of this plebiscite the value which the people of this country are to attach to the word of the Prime Minister is of some concern. I might not care a rap for anything the leader of the opposition might say about me in a personal way, but when it comes to a public issue of this magnitude it is important that the people should have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the administration in so all-important a question. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition was the one that asked, not that "a" question should be set out in the bill, but that the question which I had set out in the debate on the address should be the question to be put into the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Right, but I never anywhere approved1 the principle of the question. I never did that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is quite aside from the point. It is the question and the wording of it that we are discussing now. The whole discussion arose on the amendment of the hon. member for Macleod that we should add certain words to the question, and the leader of the opposition's point was that we should be so certain as to the question to be put to the people, that that particular question should be inserted in the bill. Let me read what he said on the question of the plebiscite. At page 755 of Hansard of February 20, 1942, he said:
On the question of the plebiscite itself, I was-astonished to hear the Secretary of State say that the question to be asked would not be in the bill but would be a matter of proclamation.
A little further on he said:
But certainly the Prime Minister gave the categorical undertaking that a certain question would be put to the people of this country.
A categorical undertaking that "a certain question"-that is the question which is now in the bill. It is the only question that has ever been before the house, and I did give, as my hon. friend says, a categorical declaration that that question would be the one that would be put into the bill. My hon. friend went on to say:
Why should iit be left to a proclamation which may be twiddled around by the government and we may not have that question put to the people? You might have something entirely different, or something which will have a shaded meaning-[DOT]
He did not wish a shaded meaning in the question. He wanted my specific question to be inserted in the bill, and this in order to avoid any question that would have a shaded meaning. He went on:
-or something which will be different in principle even, from what was stated not only in the speech from the throne but by the Prime Minister himself.
He attached value to the importance of the wording because it was given by the Prime Minister. I immediately stated that we would have the question inserted in the bill. Then my hon. friend said:
I am glad to have the Prime Minister make that statement, because I want some certainty.
And this certainty was to get that particular question into the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, to get "a" question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not "a" question but "the" question, and I will prove it from my hon. friend's words. He said at page 755 of Hansard:
When I hear the Secretary of State say that it will be the subject of proclamation, over

Plebiscite Act
which parliament will have no control but over which the government will have full control-
Mr. Mackenzie King: No, no.
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):	-I may be
pardoned-
And 4 ask hon. members to listen to this, as to why my hon. friend wanted this specific question inserted. He said:
-I may be pardoned if I appear a little suspicious that there is some change in plan, or that there may be some change. Of course the Prime Minister-
These are the words I direct attention to:
Of course the Prime Minister now has pledged his word that the question will not be altered.
Still "the" question, that "the" question will not be altered because the Prime Minister has pledged his word with regard to it. In view of the attitude my hon. friend takes in relation to government and parliament with respect to the people, that a pledge does not amount to anything, I am not surprised that he should attach no importance whatever to whether or not I now am to be put in a position where later he can say that I went back on the pledge I gave to the House of Commons. Here are his words:
Of course the Prime Minister now has pledged his word-
Who did I pledge it to? To this house, including my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. And what did I pledge my word to, according to his own statement? That the question will not be altered. Well, I tell him that the question will not be altered because this government attaches importance to its pledged word given in this House of Commons, just as it attaches importance to the pledge that was given to the people of this country. Then my hon. friend says:
-and that, if necessary the question will be put in the bill. So that we have learned something this afternoon.
My hon. friend went further and said, and I ask hon. members if it was not within their hearing that he rose a moment ago and said, "I did not say 'the' question but 'a' question". What did he say? He said "the" exact question. Let me read his words, in the first column of page 756 of Hansard:
I understood that the general scope of the question would be the same, but the Prime Minister categorically placed upon the records of this house the exact question that would be asked.
How does my hon. friend expect myself and my colleagues to change the wording of this question after he has demanded that the exact question which is now a part of the record and has been all through this debate should be the one that would be inserted in
the bill? A little further on the leader of the opposition says:
.	.	. now we certainly have got something
definite on that point.
Yes, and we are going to hold to it now that we have got something definite and exact. That I think answers so far as the leader of the opposition is concerned, the necessity of the government holding to this particular question in the bill. We have pledged our word to him and to the house that the exact question which I put forward here at the time of the debate on the address would' be presented to the people. We have placed it in the bill at the request of the leader of the opposition and other hon. members, and we are going to hold to that question.
Now let me come to the question itself and ask if it is capable of the kinds of interpretation which have been given to it:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation-
The hon. member for Macleod has 'said that he does not think that means anything.


Mr. HANSELL:: It does not stop there. If it stopped there it would be all right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that I cannot follow my hon. friends; I do not know what is in their minds when they say that they think there is some cunning back of this question, and that what the government does not want is to be released from the-commitment. The hon. member says that when the people have voted we shall not know whether we are released or not.


Ernest George Hansell: I rise to a point of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I am mistaken. I said1, "the-hon. member for Macleod"; I meant the hon. member sitting immediately behind him who-spoke a moment ago.


An hon. MEMBER:: Bow River.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I am sorry. It was the hon. member for Bow River who said that when this question was-answered it would not have any effect on the government.


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order, I do not think I ever referred to the Prime Minister as being cunning. I ask the chairman to have the Prime Minister withdraw that statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said that my hon. friend seems to think that there is some cunning behind the question as it is framed; and, if I understood him aright, his point was-
Plebiscite Act

that after the people had voted the government would not be released from anything, but that we were simply asking the people if they were willing to do something.


Charles Edward Johnston: I used the word "ambiguity", not "cunning".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid that I cannot make the English language any plainer than it is.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am trying to help you.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon?


Charles Edward Johnston: I am trying to assist.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I appreciate my hon. friend's motive, but I cannot say the same about his methods.
Now, "any obligation arising out of any past commitments. . . ." The whole question relates to past commitments. The leader of the opposition sought yesterday to have it refer to power or to fact, to some existing law. I have said over and over again that the government has power, legal power, to pass any enactment which this house is prepared to pass. It has as a matter of fact legislated with respect to raising men by voluntary enlistment and raising men by conscription, for service within Canada itself; so that there is no question about the matter of power or the question of fact.
But now my hon. friends in the far corner who have spoken raise the question that it is a matter of the disposition of troops. I may point out to them that it is not at all a matter of disposition of troops. Or let me put it in this way first so as to be clear as to the matter of methods. There are two methods of enlisting men for service overseas. One is the voluntary method, the other is the method of compulsion or conscription. With respect to the voluntary method, men raised thereby for service overseas can be sent to any quarter of the globe. Hon. members talk about the disposition of troops; the government is free to-day to dispose of these forces anywhere overseas. Those who have enlisted voluntarily may be sent for service overseas or kept at home.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Will the Prime Minister permit a question? Will he at this point explain what are the restrictions on the methods of raising men in Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, that is the next point. There is one restriction and one only, and that is the restriction upon raising men for service overseas, not voluntarily-
TMr. Mackenzie King.]


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The "methods"?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -but by compulsion. Compulsion is a method. That is the whole point.


Mr. QUELCH:: The ballot does not say that. It merely says "military service."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are only two methods-one voluntary, and one compulsory. With regard to raising men compulsorily for service there is no commitment when the service is confined to within Canada. But when resort is to be had to conscription, in other words, to the "method" of conscription, for raising men for service overseas, there is a commitment which binds the government, a commitment made before we entered the war, a commitment made at the time that parliament entered the war, a commitment made at the last general election, a commitment which has been made time and time again.
Now I hope that I have made clear wherein the wording is exactly correct,-"any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service." This commitment not to send men overseas under compulsion restricts the method, namely the compulsory method, of raising men for military service where it applies to overseas. I do not think that anything could be clearer than that.
The hon. member for Weyburn said something a moment ago about "inescapable logic." I would ask him as a logician and a philosopher whether there is any word in the English language which could be more comprehensive when applied to commitments than the word "any" itself? Well, now, "any . . . commitments" covers commitments with respect to sending men to any part of the earth or to any theatres of war, or to anywhere else, if such is to be found. What the government is anxious the people should understand is that we wish a perfectly free hand; we do not wish to be committed in any particular. If the word "any" were not there, it would instantly be said, "Oh yes, you are taking good care to specify a particular commitment, but you don't say anything about some other commitment or what might be construed as a commitment." We wish to make the language so broad that there can be no misgiving as to any commitment from now on, which relates to the method of raising men for service overseas. If this plebiscite carries, neither the government nor any hon. member will be free to argue that we cannot decide upon conscription or any other question with respect to our war effort because of a certain commitment.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Would the Prime Minister be willing to take the committee into his confidence and tell us why he

Plebiscite Act
9S5
insists on the question being phrased in the general term "any .... commitment," instead of asking to be relieved from the specific commitment which he has in mind, which we all have in mind, and which we all know this question has reference to?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I will take the committee into my confidence, and say that the whole is greater than any part; that it includes everything. This precludes the possibility of anyone saying that the government is trying to get away with one thing while keeping back conscription or something else in the nature of a commitment. It is because the government wants to be perfectly straightforward in the matter and to permit of no shadow of doubt with respect to its intentions.
Something has been said about the question of conscription not being an issue. I have pointed out, time and again, that were this house to-day to begin to discuss the question of conscription,_ hon. members seated on this side of the chamber who are prepared to respect the pledge which was given in the last general election and at different times would rise and say, "We are not in a position to discuss conscription on its merits, because conscription for service overseas was ruled out of consideration by the commitment which was made by the government in the last general election and at other times." So would hon. gentlemen opposite if they were to honour the pledge and the commitment which was made by their leader with respect to conscription. So that the question of conscription is not the issue. The question of conscription may come up, perhaps will come up, after the plebiscite has been passed. If it comes up, then it will become an issue which can be debated in this house, which is the proper place in which to debate it. It is not an issue to be debated by people on the hustings. If conscription were an issue in this plebiscite the government would be placing upon the people of Canada to-day the duty of making a military and political decision. Surely that is clear. That is the thing we have been seeking to avoid; we have been seeking to avoid putting upon the people a responsibility which they are not in a position to exercise. How can the people say whether or not conscription is necessary, whether it should be resorted to or not resorted to, when they do not know all the circumstances that must 'be taken into account in regard to a matter of the kind? But the government knows them.


Mr. ROWE:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says "hear, hear." Certainly the government
knows them and will continue to know them as the war progresses; and the government will take such action as it thinks advisable to take in the light of the knowledge which it has. But that knowledge will not be concerned with one single factor only; it will be in regard to every single factor that should be taken into account in making Canada's war effort as effective and complete as it can possibly be made.


William Earl Rowe: I did not wish to interrupt the Prime Minister but I should like to ask him a question. In view of the fact that it is generally recognized that the government has that knowledge, that no other body in the dominion has, and will have knowledge of the ever-darkening hours from now on; in view of the fact, further, that the Prime Minister has so carefully avoided telling the people of the country what he will do if they say yes to this somewhat misleading question, what will the government say?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: What will the government
say, if the people say no? Will they virtually take us out of the war by putting a stop to the sending of reinforcements overseas to the boys who are fighting with their backs to the wall now, if the people say no?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
. Mr. ROWE: My hon. friends interrupt, but they will answer another body some day if the people say no.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The trouble with my hon. friend is that he identifies Canada's whole war effort with one single thing, namely, conscription for overseas service regardless of how much else there may be or how little needed conscription itself may be to secure the men necessary for service overseas. May I say this to him-and this is one reason why I want to get rid of the commitment that is standing where it is. That commitment stands to-day like a barn door against which my hon. friend and those who talk like him can keep on hammering and making a noise; but once that commitment which precludes the exercise of conscription, if necessary, is taken out of the way, they will be striking at an open door when they discuss what the government may or may not do. I can only say to my hon. friend, with respect to what the government will do after the plebiscite has been decided one way or the other, that the government will make its policy known in due course in the light of all circumstances as they may then exist.


William Earl Rowe: In view of the fact that my question was not answered, and the Prime
Plebiscite Act

Minister was kind enough to try to clarify my remarks, I might point out that as regards a barn door against which people are pounding for the sake of the noise alone, the Prime Minister was unfair to my leader in suggesting that he felt there was a trick merely in the wording of this matter. I feel that this whole question is not only a trick on the people in the country but a trick on the boys that are serving overseas.


Thomas Vien: Order. When the chairman stands, lion, members must sit down. It Is strictly against the rules of the house, as I ruled last night and must rule to-day, to suggest that a measure before the committee is a trick or is something misleading or something deceitful. There are a number of exemplary expressions that are given in the rules of the house, and the hon. gentleman must withdraw what he has just said.


William Earl Rowe: I certainly will withdraw the word "trick", but it has been used so often that I thought probably it might convey what I think. I must withdraw that word, but I am sorry that you, Mr. Chairman, have not [DOT]observed such expressions as "nazi tactics" as well, because they have been used on different occasions by the Prime Minister and might have been withdrawn also. I do say that so far as the government-


Thomas Vien: I admit what the hon. gentleman has said. We very often pass a number of expressions that should be ruled out, but it is only when the limit is reached that we have to apply the rule.


William Earl Rowe: I have listened-


Thomas Vien: On that point, may I further point out that if the chairman forgets or omits or does not understand an expression which is against the rules, it is the privilege of every hon. member to raise a point of order. There are a number of expressions that [DOT]escape the ear and attention of the chairman, and if any hon. member raises a point of [DOT]order we shall try to apply the rule most impartially.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling; but a doubt not only in the minds of many who are supporting the government, but more in the minds of the people who will vote on the issue, exists nevertheless. The matter is as clear as mud across the country. People are asking every weekend, "What does it mean if we vote yes, or what will the government do if we vote no"' Nobody understands it, and the Prime Minister refuses to throw any light upon it so

that people will understand it. We have been passing through the most critical days in the history of the empire, and while I am not going to delay the committee-because I believe this should be passed-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the language my hon. friend is using is calculated to defeat it.


William Earl Rowe: I have not held up the bill as much as the Prime Minister has himself. I think my leader has come out as clearly- and I have as well-as to what we will do on the plebiscite, and many of the right hon. Prime Minister's supporters have not done so, and the men who are opposing the bill to-day are those members of the government party who will oppose it in the country and who have stated their position in the house. I say to the right hon. gentleman that he might look over his own followers before charging us with an attempt to defeat the measure, which every one of us will try to put over in the country.	[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps when my hon. friend is giving me an example of how to proceed he will address the chair instead of me.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad to be reminded of the rules of the house by such an old and experienced parliamentarian as the Prime Minister. I was complimented in having him make over my speech for me, and I thought I might compliment him by addressing him a little. I do say that this question is not a trick, in parliamentary language, but it is so misleading


Thomas Vien: Again, that is out of order.


William Earl Rowe: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is so misunderstood by the people of the country that even a man who has been in parliament for some time cannot find English words to describe it. It is not only a reflection upon the people of the dominion, but it is a shocking surprise and disappointment to every allied force in the war. No one knows what we shall do if the people say yes, and God only knows what may happen if they say no. And when I say this empire, the empire means us as well. Some of my hon. friends may smile or feel light-hearted enough about it even to laugh. But where is Canada's first defence? We have had conscription. I have not heard in the last campaign-and I listened to many speeches; I heard the Prime Minister speak-I never heard him say he was going to have conscription right up and down the highways and byways of the country. I did not hear him

Plebiscite Act
say at that time that he would take the boys off the farm even if there was no one left to feed the cattle. I have not heard any of these moral obligations brought up but I have heard minister after minister say that Canada's first line of defence was overseas.


Mr. CRERAR:: If my hon. friend will pardon me, I submit that he is very distinctly [DOT]out of order. What we are discussing is the form of the ballot and the question that should be asked. What my hon. friend is talking about is the general principle of the whole measure, which was decided upon when it received second reading.


William Earl Rowe: Again I thank the minister for correcting me. I think the Prime Minister also was far afield in many of his statements this afternoon. Some latitudte has been given, but I shall endeavour to stick closely to the issue for the few moments I am going to speak.


Thomas Vien: We are discussing section 3. I understand that agreement was reached by which on the short title there -should be general discussion. That has taken place and now we are on clause 3. Under standing order 58 we must stick to the section of the bill which is before the committee.


William Earl Rowe: I thought in view of the amendment we might have some latitude. However, section 3 deals with the question to be asked:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation .arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the amendment makes it wide open.


William Earl Rowe: Even section 3 I believe gives latitude for anything I might offer at this time. All we are trying to do is to help the government by clarifying the question. But there is no assurance, especially when they are so divided themselves on this issue, when some of their followers are the only hon. members who are going to work vigorously against the plebiscite, that it is going to carry. The people of the country should be told what is going to happen. Rather than submit to the people at this time a question worded as this is, the Prime Minister would have been much better advised to carry on without the plebiscite, whether he had compulsory service or not.
So far as moral obligation is concerned, again I refer to these men who are taken and conscripted. True, conscription was not an issue in the last election. Both sides stated there would be no conscription. But much has happened since 1940 and1 even since this
session began. Time after time since the beginning of the session this empire has surrendered ground. We have seen the darkest days in the history of the British empire. We see still darker days threatening, and now we are asked to say to the Prime Minister: We will release you from any past commitments with reference to military service. Can anyone tell me that compulsory military service is not here if there should be an invasion? Have we not conscription for home defence?
I am not one of those who says it is not just as much the duty of the farmers' sons as any other class to take part in this war, and our farmers know that. But I have received letters, as I presume every hon. member has, with regard to the position of farmers. I received one to-day with regard to a farmer who was on his back-


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. gentleman must know that the question of exempting farmers' sons from military service is clearly outside the scope of section 3. Section 3 does not involve the principle of the measure, but only the form of the question to be put to the voters. Therefore hon. members should limit their remarks to the form of the question to be put in the taking of the plebiscite.


William Earl Rowe: But I notice that the amendment says:
Are you in favour of the conscripton of the financial institutions of Canada so that the government can fulfil its commitment to issue currency and credit in terms of public need?


Thomas Vien: We are not on that. Amendments must be considered seriatim. The only amendment now before the committee is to add at the end of the question which appears in the printed ballot the words "in any theatre of war". The other amendment is not up for consideration now.


William Earl Rowe: Then I shall still not delay the committee any longer than I can help. But I wish to point out that every hon. member when he goes to explain this section to the people will be confronted, as I have been when I have asked people to vote, by the question: What does it mean? It is the first time I have ever been asked to vote when I do not know what "yes" will mean or what "no" will bring forth. If when the answer is given by the greatest jury of all, the people of this country, they say yes, heaven only knows what they may get. If they say no, nobody knows the situation; our boys will be left overseas without reinforcements except to the extent that men are available through the voluntary system. If there is need for compulsory service for home defence to get men to fight for their own country, and we
Plebiscite Act

have a negative vote on this plebiscite, Canada will be virtually out of the war so far as reinforcements to the boys overseas are concerned. Words can scarcely describe the uncertainty. A plebiscite is always uncertain, but under this bill the question is put in such a way as to make it the most uncertain question that has ever been put to the Canadian people.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I should like a little light. I base my question to the Prime Minister on the few words he said in reference to the amendment moved by the hon. member to my left asking that the words "in any theatre of war" be added. I am not sure whether I understood the Prime Minister aright, but I thought he himself then asked the question whether, if the people voted yes he would then be expected to say he would send troops to any theatre of war. My question is whether in the event of the country voting yes the Prime Minister would then feel free to send troops to any theatre of war. If so, I would be disposed to vote for the plebiscite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point in reference to the amendment which proposes to add to the question the words "in any theatre of war" was that if those words were added a large number of people would immediately begin to read into them something that had never been in the mind of the government at all. The first thought that would come to many of them is: Oh, well, the government evidently has something further in view than has ever thus far been discussed publicly, and perhaps for that reason we had better be careful before we support this plebiscite. I do not think the words would help to gain support for the question, and for that reason I do not think they should be added. I am anxious to see the question made as simple and direct as possible, and one that will not create suspicion in the mind of anyone as to the intentions of the government. All the government wants as a result of this question is to have a perfectly free hand to deal with situations as they may arise in the light of all the knowledge it possesses, with a view to having done what is most effective with respect to Canada's war effort.
As to where troops should be sent, or when they should be sent, or how many should be sent, all these questions will be dealt with by the government itself in the light of its knowdedge of the world situation and of what is likely best to serve the war effort of the country, and of the allied nations, without restriction of any kind. I cannot say that the government might be disposed to send troops here, there or elsewhere. Everything will 
depend upon how the war develops, and what it may become most advisable to do. What the government wants is to have a free hand to do the thing that is most advisable and most necessary.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I wonder whether I could ask a question with regard to what the Prime Minister said a few moments ago. I know he compared the official opposition with nazis, and I wonder whether in the same way he would compare President Roosevelt with Hitler, having regard to his broken pledges on this point. I listened to several of the Prime Minister's broadcasts during the election campaign of 1940, but I did not hear him in any of those speeches refer to conscription for overseas. I heard him say there would be no conscription if his government were returned to power. So that when he speaks of this moral obligation I should like him to tell us just at what point during the campaign of 1940 he established the distinction between conscription and conscription for overseas service. I believe that moral obligation has been broken to some extent already, having regard to the speeches I heard him deliver. Perhaps he could establish the point during the campaign at which the distinction was made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First of all may I say to my hon. friend that when I spoke of nazi methods I was not reflecting on the opposition. I was setting out the difference between an attitude which takes account of moral obligations and an attitude which says, "We care nothing about moral obligations except to ignore and destroy them." I say that to-day the people are vitally concerned as to whether the former method of viewing obligations is to hold in Canadian affairs or as to whether the other method, which is the nazi method, is going to hold. I was not reflecting upon any individuals; I was speaking about methods in connection with matters of government.
With regard to the question of conscription, I would say to my hon. friend that it has always been understood, and in fact it is embedded in the Militia Act, that in time of war every man may be compulsorily called out to serve his country. That is there; it has been there from the start. Compulsion in regard to the defence of your own country is something that does not need to be referred to, because it is an obligation that the government may require to be fulfilled at any moment it pleases.


James Arthur Ross: I would not think the general public would know much about that.

Plebiscite Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say this to my hon. friend, and I am sure that on reflection he will agree with me. The only point in discussing the question of conscription or no conscription arose out of what took place in the last great war, when men were sent overseas under conscription. The issue then was not a question with regard to conscription for Canada; it had to do with the conscription of men for service overseas. Every time the question has been discussed1, on a public platform or in parliament, it has been conscription for service overseas that people have had in mind. That is the only thing people have had in mind, I think, when that question has been discussed. Certainly I have never had any other view than that conscription might be enforced in Canada itself at any time for the defence of Canada, but that whether it should be enforced for overseas service would depend on matters such as we are discussing at the moment.


Mr. CHURCH:: Section 3 limits the bill to the taking of a plebiscite on a question to be set out on the ballot, to be answered by yes or no. A person goes into the polling booth; he is banded this ballot and he reads it over. He does not know that our military forces are established by statutes such as the Militia Act, the mobilization act, and other acts. The words "military forces" apply to land forces, sea forces and air forces. Early in January I called for a return respecting military forces. On February 13 a return was brought down which should be read into this ballot. According to this return, all members of the air force have enlisted for service anywhere. That lets them out of the ballot. As to the navy, it is stated that all personnel enlisting for active service in the navy undertake to serve where-ever they are required. That silent wing of the service is out. Then you come to the army, which is the only branch of the service left, and according to the return brought down by the minister the army is not under this limitation at all. We have the Army Act, the Militia Act to read into the ballot, and the National War Services Act. The return states that there are about 8,000 enlistments for home defence; that as of December 31 total enlistments for service anywhere numbered 299,375, and that all the army come under the National Resources Mobilization Act. That is the position of the army, the navy and the air force, so that two branches of the service do not come within this ballot.
Then the question contained in the ballot goes on to ask whether the voter is in favour of releasing the government from any obligation or past commitment for war, and so on. What does this bill mean by an obligation or
commitment? What is an obligation or commitment? We have entered into a great many obligations and commitments with foreign powers in a military way both before and since this war started. We have entered into pledges, which should be read into this ballot, with a foreign military power, a friend, neighbour and ally of ours, the United States. We entered into an obligation with them by means of two or three notes and boards which will commit this country forever. We did not object to the Atlantic conference; we did not protest the giving away of bases from Newfoundland to British Guiana, although bound by them in a military way immediately. Surely those are obligations and commitments affecting this country, and we have been pledged to them and their consequences, because when Britain is at war Canada is at war. We gave away bases all the way from Newfoundland to British Guiana; and whether or not Canada consented to that agreement, and did not object, but aided, we are bound by it for all time. That is one obligation in a military sense and parliament and the voters of this country who knew not of it are committed to it, notwithstanding the fact that it was not discussed in this parliament though during some of it parliament was sitting.
We have also made commitments in the Pacific. In 1938 a member of the government told us that all the enclosed money $35,000,000, was being spent for two conditional purposes, first for home defence and second to protect our neutrality in case the United States should be attacked. We are bound by it to the United States. That was an obligation and commitment which could entail military service and bring us to the edge of war, and we knew it in 1938; and only the other night the Prime Minister referred to "adjacent territory," after the leader of the opposition had mentioned it. There was another commitment. Will the voters and the press understand that the government is released from all these commitments as well if we vote yes, but we are bound forever, vote or no vote? That is the question I should like to ask, because whether we like it or not we are committed to all these things forever, and also to war.
The ballot goes on to refer to the fact that we are restricted in our methods of raising men for military service. We are not. It is the duty and function alone of the government. This ballot, I am afraid, is going to cause a great deal of confusion and spoiled ballots. After all, the entire onus for these commitments and obligations is upon the government of the day and the whole conduct of the war is theirs. Why should they try to shift that onus to private members and to us in the opposition? I do not know. I ran as a
Plebiscite Act

straight Conservative. I was never anything but a straight Conservative. I was never consulted by my late leader; I never saw him during the whole election campaign, and he did not bind me . The voluntary system is the best and only system, and we would have had a million men under it and rendered compulsion unnecessary. I never saw our former leader during the whole election of 1940.
The form of this ballot is limited by section 3, but you have to consider the background of the thing and the cause and effect it will have upon the average voter. When he comes to mark his ballot he will be confused. First we had the statement before the house met, and in the speech from the throne that it was all about conscription and nothing else. Then we had the statement by the Prime Minister last Thursday about adjacent territory. The voter will be confused because there is no clarity about it. So far as asking members of parliament to go out in their constituencies to advocate this ballot is concerned, I can say that I shall not advocate it or go out or have anything to do with it. I supported rearmament in. 1936. I shall not give my constituents any advice as to how to vote. It is none of my business, duty or function. That is not the duty of a private member. That responsibility is upon the government of the day as long as they are the government of the day. It is none of my duty, business or function. It is their obligation to save this country, and look after the defence of the realm. There has never yet been a proper and adequate defence of the realm of this country, and the government is now trying to shift this off on to the private members and the electors by side-stepping their own responsibilities, duty and functions under the constitution of this country.


Mr. DUPUIS:: I crave the indulgence of the committee to make a few remarks following what has been said by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). They seem to think that if the question proposed in section 3 is answered in the negative the Canadian nation will go out of the war. I obtained from the bureau of statistics certain returns obtained in the census. These show that there are about
1,200,000	single men between the ages of 18 and 45 years, and approximately 1,000,000 married men between the same ages, or a total of 2,200,000 men of military age. If we deduct the twenty per cent that would be medically unfit, we have left 1,800,000 men who would be fit for military service. 
Hon. gentlemen know that these 1,800,000 men of military age would have to be placed into the three categories of national defence, war industries and the production of foodstuffs.


Thomas Vien: I am sorry, but I must direct the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that we are dealing with section 3 which is concerned exclusively with the form of the question to be put to the voters.


Vincent Dupuis: I am sure that you are right, but I ask the indulgence of the committee in order that I may answer hon. gentlemen opposite. I hope I shall be allowed to put on record the statistics I have. I shall not be long. As I say, these 1,800,000 men of military age must be divided into the three categories of national defence, war industry and agriculture. We thus have
600.000	for national defence. National defence must be divided into home service and overseas service; dividing 600,000 by two gives us 300,000 for overseas service. We already have compulsory service for home defence. The 300,000 men must again be divided into three branches: the army, the navy and the air force. I think in the long run we shall have an equal number of men in each branch of national defence. By dividing these 300,000 men into three, we have 100,000 for the army. It will be recalled that men who enlist in the navy or the air force are bound to go anywhere in the world. Compulsory service is limited to the army.
Suppose that the government on some future date should see, as the people may see themselves, that danger is getting nearer to our shores. I submit that at that time the people of Canada will be the first ones to ask the government to adopt any measure to protect this country and help our allies. We have only 100,000 men who would be available for compulsory enlistment in the army. (Look at the results we have already. A total of
410.000	men have enlisted voluntarily to go anywhere in the world. I would tell the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe and the hon. member for Broadview that the empire will not be in danger if the people of this country should answer no to this question. The war will go on just the same. With compulsory service the results will be much less than they are now. That is the way I understand the question.


Thomas Vien: I am sorry, but I cannot permit tlie'hon. gentleman to continue.


Vincent Dupuis: I am finished, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman has been too long already. The rules of the house

Plebiscite Act
cannot be enforced unless hon. members are ready to abide by them. The question is on the amendment.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not going into a long dissertation in this connection, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has spoken on my amendment and I feel I should say a few words. I said yesterday that I was confused -with respect to the question, but I think it would have been better if the Prime Minister had not spoken. I am worse off now than ever. I am not only confused; I am befooled, befuddled, bemused, bewildered, perplexed and- confounded. I do not know what explanation can be given to the question now. I am so confused I won't attempt to answer the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has said that -the proposed amendment will give rise to unwarranted suspicion. That is the term used. I contend that the question as it no-w appears on the ballot -paper is bound >to give rise to unwarranted suspicion. The amendment clarifies the situation so that the people will know exactly what they are voting for.
The Prime Minister also made the charge- perhaps I should not say it was a charge, but he said that in the discussion of this matter some of us 'wanted to make out that there was some trick or trickery in the question. I say, Mr. Chairman, that it is the question as it is now worded that gives rise to suspicions that there might be some trickery. We are not claiming that. We simply want to relieve the minds of the people of Canada from that very thing by having them vote on a definite question. The Prime Minister has talked a good deal about being released from any past commitments, any past commitments, "any" past commitments. If he said that once, he said it a dozen times. Then why not simply put a period after the word "commitments" and strike out the rest of the question?
I believe that the government should be given a free hand in time of war, subject of course to parliament and to proper legislation. We do not desire the government's hands to be tied. We simply want to clarify the question that is to be submitted in the plebiscite.
I did not quite catch the implication of the Prime Minister's remarks with regard1 to what he termed a nazi mentality. I am not going to speak of that now, but I shall read Hansard to-morrow to see just exactly what was meant by it. He was looking at me when he said it. I do believe this, that there was no reason for the Prime Minister bringing any such thing into the discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say that my hon. friend flatters himself when he says I was looking at him when I said that. I was not even thinking of my hon. friend or of his mentality. I was thinking of the methods.


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you. I could really see no reason for bringing such a thing into the debate. I do not want to capitalize on this but I have two sons in the air force. I said that the other day. I have only three sons, and I have a letter now saying that the third son has enlisted. That is more than the Prime Minister can say.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question, question.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I have not taken up very much time on this question, and perhaps those who are calling "question" will bear with me for a few minutes.
This afternoon the Prime Minister gave a lecture to the leader of the opposition. I think that at a time like this personalities are altogether out of place. The leader of the opposition, throughout the last two years that he has occupied this position, has not desired any of us to give eulogies to him, nor does he now. But let me say to the Prime Minister that the leadership which the leader of the opposition has given has been of material benefit to the war effort of this dominion, and his record has been one of cooperation with the government to improve the war effort in an earnest desire to give patriotic service, and I think the time has come for us on this side of the house to pay a tribute to the work he has done.
This afternoon the Prime Minister defined the meaning of the question to be submitted in the plebiscite. As the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) said, where is the logic in this question? What does it mean? The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) asked the Prime Minister the question as to when he ever made a commitment to the people of Canada during the last election campaign that distinguished between conscription in Canada and conscription beyond the confines of Canada. The answer of the Prime Minister was not a categorical one. His answer was, in effect, that everybody was thinking about conscription as it existed in 1917. I have looked over the speeches of the Prime Minister, and while I am not saying that they have been read sufficiently carefully for me to be able to say definitely that he never distinguished between conscription for service within Canada and conscription for service beyond Canada, I have not been able to find any such distinction. Certainly there was a pledge made before parliament, but the Prime Minister pointed out the other day that so
Plebiscite Act

far as the pledge made before parliament was concerned, parliament could release him from that pledge, but that he could only get release from a pledge made to the people of Canada during an election campaign by asking the people to release the government from the moral obligation created thereby. Then I ask the Prime Minister, why not ask the people a direct, unequivocal question? Why make things even more confusing by asking a question that is capable of interpretation according to the feelings of the individual voter?
The Prime Minister claims that to change the wording of the plebiscite would create unwarranted suspicions. I *wonder in whose minds would there be suspicion. If you are going to ask a person, "Will you do this or that?" you ask that very question. You do not clothe it in words that permit of equivocation in the interpretation placed thereon by the person being questioned or the one who asks the question.
So far as the last election campaign is concerned-I am speaking of western Canada *-a minister of the crown who spoke there, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), throughout the campaign pointed out that the difference between the three political parties in the field, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the Conservatives and the Liberals, was this:
. . . the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, from whose platform he (the Minister of Agriculture) read a number of clauses, referred particularly to the call for the conscription of wealth for war. In the second group was the party headed by Hoe. R. J. Manion that opposed the conscription of men to be sent out of Canada; they did not mind conscripting men for the defence of Canada.
The Liberals, through their leader, Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, had already taken their stand, no conscription of men, and no direct conscription of wealth, but men and money for the prosecution of the war.
In other words the Minister of Agriculture meant to convey to the people that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party stood for the conscription of wealth; the Conservative party did not stand for the conscription of man-power for overseas service but for conscription of man-power for service within Canada; and the Liberal party stood for neither. But in June, 1940, when conditions made necessary the raising of men, that pledge given by a minister of the Prime Minister's ow'n government was departed from and conscription was brought in of manpower for service within Canada because of the need for men and the then prevailing war exigencies. Who was then asked to decide on that matter? It was parliament. The pledge that was given to the people of Canada in the words quoted above was that no conscription

whether for service within Canada or beyond Canada would be introduced by the government. But. in June, 1940, the government in effect secured a release from its pledge not - to bring in conscription for service in Canada by introducing and securing the passage through parliament of the National Resources Mobilization Act. Why cannot the same course be followed to-day?
If, however, the government is going on with the submission of the plebiscite, I ask the Prime Minister to change the wording of the question, so that there will be no possible misunderstanding as to the meaning of the question. As it stands to-day, it reads:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
I urge the government to make this question clear. We on this side of the house are not trying to hold up the matter. We want action too, and to secure that, all we ask is that the people of Canada be given an opportunity of voting on something regarding which they will know what question they are voting on, and that they will have some idea of the responsibility for action which will rest on this government and on parliament in the event that there is an affirmative vote.


Mr. BRUCE:: I do not intend to delay the committee for more than a moment or two, but I think it will be very apparent to those who have listened to the speeches in this chamber and have read the press of the country that there is much confusion as to what is meant by the question which is to be submitted to the people in the plebiscite. The hon. member for Macleod has used a great many adjectives to indicate the extent of the confusion. I would say it is "confusion worse confounded". Nobody seems to know exactly what is meant by this question, in spite of the explanations given by the Prime Minister in a considerable speech a week ago, again yesterday, and to-day. I believe that if we adopted the amendment of the hon. member for Macleod and clarified the situation by the addition of the five words, "in any theatre of war," everybody would be satisfied, at least with the question which is being submitted.
I wonder whether this plebiscite would be gone on with if the Japanese landed on Vancouver island, or if the city of Quebec or some of the cities of the maritime provinces were subjected to bombing or shelling. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that, before there is a chance of submitting this question to the people, we in Canada shall be in a very serious and dangerous position.

Plebiscite Act
I wonder also whether the Prime Minister would suggest that his moral obligation is greater than that of his friend, Mr. Roosevelt. This is what Mr. Roosevelt said during the 1940 election campaign to the people of the United States-giving them quite as definite a pledge as was made by the Prime Minister of Canada:
While I am talking to you fathers and mothers, I will say it again and again and again, your boys are not going to be sent to fight in foreign wars.
This pledge was not only made by Mr. Roosevelt but supported by every member of congress. After the treacherous attack of Japan Mr. Roosevelt and congress had no hesitation in breaking the election pledge and legislating to send American boys to every part of the globe.
I should like to submit this question to the Prime Minister: Will he and his government put forth the same effort to ensure a favourable vote on the plebiscite as they did to ensure the success of the victory loan?
May I add just a word as to my own position in respect of this plebiscite. While I think it is very improper to shift to the electorate the responsibility which belongs to parliament, I shall vote yes on the plebiscite, and do my utmost to secure as many votes in the affirmative as I can, my reason being that it will relieve the government from what it considers to be a commitment; and because I greatly fear what will result if this plebiscite is defeated, as it very well may be.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, just one word. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Parkdale upon the statement he has just made about the possibility of the invasion of Canada. It shows the necessity of doing all we can for the defence of this country.
I have been a supporter of the government for seventeen years, and I am still a supporter of the government. On the other hand I find it pretty hard to give them a blank cheque by releasing them from all pledges which may have been made to the Canadian people. Not only was there a pledge regarding compulsory military service overseas, but there was also a pledge that there would be no amalgamation of railways.


Thomas Vien: Order, please. The
question is on section 3, which determines the form of the question to be put to the voters. The remarks of the hon. gentleman are irrelevant.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to argue my case, and I will point out to you only one thing. The obligation is not specified; the word "obligation" is preceded by the word "any", which means that to
answer yes to the question implies that in the opinion of the voter the government is released from any pledge which has been made to the people.


Thomas Vien: Order, please. The wording of the question is, "obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service".


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I will not insist upon it. But there is another point: to whom has this pledge been made? In the first place it was made to those who were in favour of the neutrality of Canada. When Canada entered into war some Canadians were opposed to that and favoured the neutrality of Canada, and a certain pledge was then made to them' that there would be no compulsory military service. Afterwards, when conscription for home defence was established, there was a second pledge given to those who were against conscription of any kind. Then at the last election the pledge was made; it was made in the house and also by leading politicians when they travelled throughout the country. Now, suppose that in a constituency forty per cent of the people were against conscription and sixty per cent were for conscription. The pledge was not made to those who were for conscription; it was made to those who were against conscription. It is therefore up to the latter to release the government from any obligation incurred thereby. Take a constituency in which the proportion is forty per cent against conscription and sixty per cent for conscription. For one reason or another some of the sixty per cent may have supported the government candidate notwithstanding the question of conscription for overseas service. They supported him because he was a personal friend or had obliged them, or for some other reason which did not enter into consideration of the pledge. Is it fair to take the majority of any constituency, even the vote of those who were not interested in the pledge, to release the government from all responsibility in the matter. Of course, it is the majority that rules, but in some constituencies the majority were against conscription. It may have happened in the constituencies of hon. gentlemen_


Thomas Vien: The hon. member is discussing the principle of the bill. His remarks are not directed to the form of question to be put. Section 3 of the bill is exclusively concerned with the form of question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir, but I am not discussing the principle of the bill, but the pledge.


Thomas Vien: Even that is not now before the chair. The matter before the chair is only the form of question to be put to the voter, and of course there is the amendment.

Plebiscite Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are only dealing with section 3, subsection 1?


Thomas Vien: Yes.


Liguori Lacombe: The Prime Minister said a moment ago that the wording of the ballot is the clearest in the world. The wording of the pledge and the commitments against conscription, made to the people of Canada in 1940, were also very plain and) clear. Consequently, why does the government not withdraw this bill?
Amendment (Mr. Hansell) negatived.


Thomas Vien: There is another amendment moved by Mr. Hansell.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is it in order for an hon. member to move two amendments at once?


Thomas Vien: No. When several
amendments are submitted to the chair they are taken one after the other in the order determined by the Chairman. I am taking the second amendment that has been moved, as follows:
That a second question be placed upon the ballot paper as follows:
Are you in favour of the conscription of the financial institutions of Canada so that the government can fulfil its commitment to issue currency and credit in terms of public need?
I declare this amendment out of order for the reason that it is inconsistent and goes far beyond the principle of the bill which is now before the committee. The question is on section 3, subsection 1.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understood that the minister had a new ballot and I compliment him upon it. Is this not the time when we should have an amendment introduced in that regard?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I was just on the point of moving for adoption of the new ballot which we discussed last night. We do not need to discuss it at length again. It has been simplified in a way which I think will recommend itself to the committee. I will ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) to move the necessary amendment to section 3, subsection 1, to insert the ballot which has now been distributed in place of the one that appears in the bill.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Mulock moves that the ballot form which appears in the printed bill be deleted, and that the ballot form which is now submitted be substituted in lieu thereof. Therefore the words "every person qualified to vote at the plebiscite" on the ballot form will disappear and the following will be substituted in lieu thereof: "Vote by making a cross thus X after the word yes or after the word no."


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the ballot is a great improvement. I only rise to suggest, however, that there be no instructions on the ballot. These are posted at the polling booth and everyone will know then. My experience is that the returning officer invariably instructs the voter how to mark his ballot, although he is not required to do so in every case. I suggest that the words "vote by making a cross thus X after the word yes or after the word no" be stricken out. However, I do not press the point, although I think that is the proper thing to do having regard to the form of ballot in dominion elections.


Mr. SLAGHT:: I fear that might cause confusion. I think these words should remain. We know that in other elections voters sometimes write something on their ballot. If this ballot is presented to them as a bare ballot, it seems to me you ought to tell them in that short sentence to make a cross opposite yes or opposite no. You open the door to much confusion if you do not.


Ernest George Hansell: Before this subsection
carries, may I impose upon your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, to explain the ruling which you gave a short time ago. You ruled my amendment out of order.


Thomas Vien: The ruling of the chair can be appealed from, but it is not open to discussion. Moreover, the time to appeal from it has long passed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
On section 4-Qualifications of ordinary voters.
Norman Alexander McLarty: A motion will be required to make two amendments. In line 36 the second word "a" is to be changed to "the"; and in line 37, after the words "provisions of", paragraphs should be inserted-


Thomas Vien: Concerning the question that arose last night as to how we should deal with the amendments which have been made in the special committee to which the bill was referred; I have studied that question, and I find that amendments made in the special commitee are not to be proposed as amendments to the bill when it is considered in committee of the whole. They are to be taken up as part of the bill, and they must be submitted together with the clauses to which they refer, but no separate motion needs to be made for their adoption because the committee of the whole is not vested with the power to revise the work of the special committee.
On second reading the principle of the bill was all that was passed, the details being left

Plebiscite Act
for the special committee to settle. The house has not approved a single section of this bill, and the special committee has made changes in its clauses. The adoption of these changes in the special committee is complete as far as it goes. They are now incorporated in the bill referred to the committee of the whole, and they must be considered as if they were original sections. This, I am advised, has always been the practice in committee of the whole in the Canadian House of Commons.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true if concurrence in the report of the committee had been moved, but concurrence in the report of this committee was not moved. That being so, I wonder whether that ruling is still applicable.


Thomas Vien: There has never been a motion for concurrence in the amendments made by a special committee on a bill referred not to the committee of the whole but to a special committee. The bill is read a second time, then referred to a special committee; the special committee deals with it and then reports the bill as amended by it, or without amendments, as the case may be. When the bill comes back to the committee of the whole it is taken in the form in which it has been reported on by the special committee, and there is no concurrence in the amendments of the special committee; but of course the committee of the whole, when the sections of the bill so amended are taken up, can always amend it further as it deems advisable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That procedure was not followed on the unemployment insurance bill. When that bill came back from the special committee the members of the administration moved time and again to have certain amendments made in it. I do not know whether we were wrong then, but my understanding is that the amendments have to be made one by one.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think I explained last evening regarding the procedure on the unemployment insurance bill that I was speaking purely from recollection. I believe your honour has gone into it carefully now-


Thomas Vien: Yes. Furthermore, the amendments are before the committee, because the bill has been reprinted. I have no objection at any hon. member's request, to read in what particulars the bill has been amended in the special committee. But I am ruling now that there is no necessity for a motion of concurrence in the amendments.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not an important matter, but one of ways and means of doing a thing and the established
44561-83}
practice. I am not questioning how it is being done, but I think we should stick to one rule.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I think the chairman is quite in order even considering the practice followed in connection with the unemployment insurance bill. My recollection is that that bill was not reprinted. We had' the typewritten amendments made by the committee, and then those amendments were moved when the bill was discussed in committee of the whole. I see no reason why, with a reprinted bill before us, we should not deal with it as a bill which has received second reading.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask that it be taken up one subsection at a time.


Thomas Vien: Yes.
On section 4, subsection 1.


Mr. RAYMOND:: I desire to move,
seconded by the hon. member for Temis-couata:
That section 4 of subsection 1 be amended by inserting in subparagraph (a) after the words "twenity-one years" in the second line the following words: ''in the case of a woman and eighteen years in the case of a man."
The object of this amendment is to qualify to vote men of eighteen, nineteen and twenty years of age.
What is the purpose of this plebiscite? I refer to the question to be asked of the public in the plebiscite and certain declarations which were made by the Prime Minister when speaking on Wednesday last. The question to be submitted is as follows:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
The Prime Minister said:
If the answer is in the affirmative it will mean that the government according to the opinion expressed by the people has been released from commitments that have been made.
Released from what commitments? The only commitment made with respect to military service is the pledge given that no conscription would be imposed for service overseas. If the answer is in the affirmative, it will mean that the government will be free to impose conscription for service overseas. In other words, it will mean that the government will have a mandate from the people to impose conscription for overseas service if and when it thinks it desirable.
Then a very important question arises: Who should vote to give such a mandate?
Plebiscite Act

My answer is this: All those who will be liable to be called for service overseas, if conscription is imposed, should be entitled to vote on the plebiscite.
The Prime Minister said that he wants to know the opinion of the people, and the Secretary of State also said it is the desire of the government that the fullest possible opportunity should be accorded the people of Canada, to express their view upon the particular question which will be submitted.
It is only reasonable that those who will be called upon to pay the bill should be the first to he asked their opinion. The youth of military age, who are directly involved because they are the ones who will be called upon to pay the blood tax, should have something to .say. According to the Militia Act all male inhabitants of Canada between the ages of eighteen and sixty, except those exempted, are liable to military service. Consequently all those people should be entitled to vote in the plebiscite. There is a well known principle in the British constitution: No taxation without representation. The Prime Minister rightly said that parliament derived its power from the people, and it has been emphasized that this is the most democratic measure that has ever been introduced in this, parliament. Yet some of those most concerned, because they will have to pay the consequences of this measure with their blood, will be deprived of an opportunity of expressing their opinion. The Prime Minister has said that the .millions of dollars required are coming from the people, but those who pay those millions have been consulted. The man-power is also coming from the people, and all those who are liable to be conscripted should be consulted. It would be a poor democracy which would have one law for human life and an entirely preferential law for property and wealth.
I do not intend to say any more in support of this amendment, but in conclusion I should like to quote the final words used by the Secretary of State when he introduced the resolution which preceded this bill, as reported at page 754 of Hansard:
At a time when we are fighting ito maintain the democratic way of life throughout the world, let us endeavour in every way to maintain it in our own country.


Liguori Lacombe: Youth, as much as any other category of electors, should be entitled to vote in the coming plebiscite. These are the men who will have to bear all the sacrifices [DOT]called for by the government. They will have to fulfil the obligation to serve. They also *will have to pay, in the years to come, the terrific costs of this war. The government cannot assign them duties without granting them equivalent rights. Every Canadian

youth who has reached the age of eighteen should have an opportunity of voting in the coming plebiscite, not only those who aTe serving but also all those who will reach the age of eighteen on or before the date when the plebiscite will be held. For the youth of my country I request this act of justice. I request parliament and the government to fulfil the magnificent duty toward the youth of Canada which may be mobilized for the defence of Canada and even for overseas service, if ever-and may God prevent it- the government is released from its sacred pledges and its solemn commitments.
Therefore I readily second the amendment of the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie, but I suggest that every man and every woman over eighteen years of age should have the privilege of voting in the plebiscite.
Amendment negatived on division.


Thomas Vien: Shall subsection 1 of section 4 carry?


John Ritchie MacNicol: If we are not taking the paragraphs separately, I should like to ask a question about paragraph Ob), which reads:
(b) is a British subject by birth or naturalization.
I wanted to inquire if, when the enumerators are compiling the lists, they will have to be shown the naturalization papers of those who are not of British birth.
Mr. MoLARTY: I believe there is no oath required by the enumerator to show that a person is a naturalized subject, or that the production of papers or production of naturalization paper is necessary, if he is resident within that polling subdivision.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The empire is in a life and death struggle, you know.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps we might call it six o'clock, and I will check the regulations carefully.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Vien: Section 4.


Norman Alexander McLarty: When the committee rose the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) was inquiring whether enumerators would require some evidence of a person being a British subject, especially if he were naturalized; whether the naturalization papers would be required to be produced. The provisions under the regulations are the same

as those under the Dominion Elections Act. Consequently, naturalization papers are not required to be produced, but of course the right to challenge at the poll is still left open.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There are quite a number of people in my riding who are of non-British origin but are naturalized Canadians. Many of them have sons in the army, in the air force and on the sea, and I am glad to hear that they are not going to be annoyed. I think it is imperative that every effort should be made to preserve harmony among those who go to make up the people of Canada. Nothing should be done to annoy those who are naturalized but not of British birth when they are visited by the enumerators. They will know whether they have a right to put down their names.


Ernest George Hansell: Has the minister considered those who were naturalized some years ago but who, since the readjustment of the naturalization laws, have had to take out further papers? I think the minister knows to what I have reference. Supposing a man cannot produce a naturalization certificate although he was naturalized years ago; will he have difficulty at the polls? There are quite a number of citizens in that position. They are not fully aware of the new regulations and they would have to get further papers. I have had a few inquiries recently along this line, not with respect to voting but with respect to naturalization.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The provisions under the regulations as to naturalization are the same as under the elections act. I know what the hon. member has in mind. If a man has lost his naturalization papers, or if he is affected by the amendment to the Naturalization Act of 1915, it would not be a difficult matter for him to obtain new naturalization papers.


Ernest George Hansell: It would be too late when he goes to vote to get new naturalization papers.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Every voter will have to take some precaution to see that his status as a voter is maintained. That is the duty of every citizen. But there will be no difficulty placed in his way in doing that.


Ernest George Hansell: If a man does not have the new papers, will he be eligible to vote?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Under section 7, undoubtedly he would. The same provision applies as applies under the elections act.


Major James William Coldwell: I have often wondered why our citizens are always described as British subjects by birth or naturalization. Under the terminology of our statutes we have Canadian nationals or Canadian citizens.
Plebiscite Act
I have wondered why the terminology found in this bill is invariably used elsewhere. I think it is wise to preserve the terminology of British subjects, but I think our people in Canada should become more and more conscious of the fact that they are citizens of Canada, whether they have been born in this country or have come here and become domiciled or naturalized. It seems to me that the time has come when we should endeavour to teach our people that they are Canadian citizens. For example, during this debate I have felt that we have not had the consciousness of national unity that we ought to have. Until we teach our boys and girls in our schools, until we teach our men and women that we are not only subjects of His Majesty the King of Canada but Canadian citizens as well, we shall not achieve that Canadian unity we ought to have.


Mr. REID:: What about those with dual
citizenship?


Angus MacInnis: They are only the
Japanese.


Thomas Reid: Do not fly off so quickly; there are others with dual citizenship besides the Japanese.


Major James William Coldwell: As far as dual citizenship is concerned, you will find they are naturalized British citizens, although the naturalization may not be recognized by their former country. I am speaking of British subjects who are domiciled in Canada. Our statutes, such as the Immigration Act and the Canadian Nationals Act, which provides also for the renunciation of Canadian citizenship, use the terminology to which I have referred. Why not use it in our other statutes? Why not use it in our elections act on voters' lists and so on? We would thus inculcate in our people the idea that they are citizens of this country. When we were travelling in Great Britain last autumn invariably we signed ourselves as British citizens; there was no distinction as to what part of the British commonwealth we had come from.
I want to preserve my British connection; but, speaking as one who became a citizen of this country by domicile, I think it is time that our children and our people were taught that there is a loyalty due to the Dominion of Canada as such. One way to do that is to write into our statutes and our regulations the terminology that will bring that fact forcibly before them. I am not going to move an amendment tonight; I am simply bringing this before the committee at this time. I do not want to prolong a discussion which has been too long already. This plebiscite was discussed for four weeks on the address, and the present
Plebiscite Act

discussion has occupied several days. Because I do not want to prolong the discussion, I am not going to move an amendment. As I say, I think the time has come when we should try to inculcate in our people the idea that we are not French Canadians, English Canadians, Scottish Canadians or some other type of Canadians, but that wre are Canadian citizens.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This raises a very important problem, and I am glad to hear the hon. member say that he is not going to pursue it now. In connection with those who are naturalized and those with dual nationality, referred to by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), I should like to call attention to a decision of the privy council. This was the case of Cunningham versus Tomey Homma, which is reported in 1903 appeal cases. In this case the right of a naturalized citizen to vote was specifically raised, and the case went to the privy council. If hon. gentlemen have any interest in the matter, they can refer to the decision of the Lord Chancellor to be found at page 156. This case was referred to by the minister during the resolution stage.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If I remember correctly,
it was in connection with section 5 of the Naturalization Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was in
connection with the interpretation of subsection 25 of section 91 of the British North America Act which reserves to the exclusive jurisdiction of the dominion parliament the subject of naturalization. The provincial legislature has the right to determine, under section 92, what privileges, as distinguished from necessary consequences, shall be attached to it. At page 156 the Lord Chancellor makes this observation:
The extent to which naturalization will confer privileges has varied both in this country and elsewhere.
From the time of William III down to Queen Victoria no naturalization was permitted which did not exclude the alien naturalized from sitting in parliament or in the privy council.
And further down:
The term "political rights" used in the Canadian Naturalization Act is, as Walkem J. very justly says-
That w'as a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia:
-a very wide phrase, and their lordships concur in his observation that, whatever it means, it cannot be held to give necessarily a right to the suffrage in all or any of the provinces.
This means that the mere fact of naturalization under federal jurisdiction does not per se give the right to vote in the province because that right lies within the jurisdiction of the provinces themselves.


Thomas Reid: Did not Great Britain at one time disfranchise many classes of our citizens?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes. The franchise has been a matter of continual growth and the subject of many reform bills. Their lordships continued:
In the history of this country the right to the franchise has been granted and withheld on a great number of grounds, conspicuously upon grounds of religious faith, yet no one has ever (suggested that a person excluded from the franchise was not under allegiance to the sovereign.
That is not quite apposite to the point raised by my hon. friend, but it is a matter of information which I think the committee should have before them.


Mr. NEILL:: Was not the case to which the leader of the opposition referred that of a suit brought by a Japanese against the election registrar who refused to put him on the list?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Right.


Alan Webster Neill: And it was decided by Lord Haldane that the province could make any kind of franchise they wished. For instance, Catholics at one time were not allowed to have the vote. In the particular case referred to, it was definitely decided that British Columbia could have any kind of franchise they liked.


Major James William Coldwell: While I see the point that has been raised, I do not see how it affects the general argument that, even if it would involve a change in the law, we should provide for a Canadian citizenship, definite legal terminology which would embrace Canadian nationals and distinguish them as British subjects of Canadian nationality.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a very much wider question.


Norman Alexander McLarty: As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did not think it was necessary to move an amendment, I was not going to make any reply, except to say that this question was raised in the special committee and there was sympathy with the view he advances. However, this is a particular bill dealing with one plebiscite, and one only, and therefore a measure of limited application. If the change which he suggests were contemplated, I would suggest that it should be in connection with a wider measure than this particular enactment.
In the Tomey Homma case my recollection is that the effect of the decision of the judicial committee was this: Whereas by section 5 of the Naturalization Act political rights are given to those who are naturalized under that

Plebiscite Act
act, there is no inherent giving of the right of franchise in connection with it. That question may arise a little later on one of the subsequent sections, but I do not think we need consider it until we come to subsequent sections under which certain disfranchisement does take place.


Mr. GREEN:: Before we leave the question of naturalization I would ask the minister whether it is the intention to set up at this session a committee to consider the whole question of naturalization? If he will remember, two special committees appointed to review the defence of Canada regulations in 1940 and 1941 recommended that there should be a special committee of this house to consider naturalization. Would not this present session be an appropriate time to have that done?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would reply that, while it is hardly germane to the particular subject now under consideration, I am aware that the committee recommended that a naturalization committee should be set up, and all I can say at the moment is that while that matter has not been finally dealt with, it is receiving very careful consideration.


Ernest George Hansell: In reference to those who are qualified to vote, it has already been mentioned that there are certain citizens of this country who refused to register in the national registration that was held about a year and a half ago. I cannot bring myself to see how a citizen who refuses to register under a specific law of this country should be permitted to vote on an issue of this kind which, after all, is an issue concerning the earrying on of the war. I believe that at the time of the national registration it was intended to become effective in the mobilization of our human and material resources. At least we can say that as a result of the mobilization act a new ministry was created, ostensibly at least to look after the registration and the calling up of our human resources for war service. But here are citizens who absolutely refused to register, and yet we are permitting them to vote on this plebiscite. I do not think that is right. I know of certain individuals who did register but wrho, because of some little discrepancy in the answers they gave to the questions asked, have been arrested and punished. I have myself taken up one or two cases of this kind with the proper authorities. Then surely the person who refused to register at all and regarded it as of no importance should not be free to vote on a question of this kind. I do not think it is right, and I therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that section 4, subsection 1, be amended by adding at the end thereof as paragraph (d) the following:
wrho produces his registration card at the time of voting.


Major James William Coldwell: There is a great deal of merit in what the hon. member for Macleod says, but on the other hand I would point out that the registration certificate which we received was not of a kind that would keep permanently. I doubt very much whether our farmers of the west, who wear an ordinary pair of overalls, and sometimes a rather ragged pair of overalls under the conditions under which they have had to live in recent years, could produce their certificates immediately. They may have mislaid them or left them at home, or they may have become worn and been destroyed. I know that when someone made a similar suggestion I wondered whether I had my own registration certificate with me. I remembered that I had taken it from my pocket when I went to Great Britain last November, and I wondered whether I had it with me at that moment. Fortunately I had slipped it into a corner of my pocket book and was able to put my hand on it. I am convinced that while the suggestion of the hon. member for Macleod has a great deal of merit, it would lead to the disfranchising of many people. Many would not even go to the trouble of looking for their registration certificates, and many others probably would not be able to put their hands on those flimsy bits of paper which were given us as certificates a year ago last August.


Thomas Reid: Perhaps you would not have to go far in this house, either.


Major James William Coldwell: Probably the hon.
member for New Westminster is right, that if we of this house were suddenly asked to produce our registration certificates-


Thomas Reid: Oh, I have mine.


Major James William Coldwell: -some of us might have difficulty in doing so. Like the hon. member * for New Westminster, I have mine, I know, because I happened to look for it the other day.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Hansell moves:
That section 4, subsection 1, be amended by adding at the end thereof after paragraph (c) another paragraph:
(d) who produces his registration card at the time of voting.


Richard Burpee Hanson: the left are now going to claim the credit.. I have no objection to that. The suggestion is a good one. There are people in this country who have not registered, who deliberately did not register, yet we are going to allow them all the rights of citizenship. The excuses, if I may so term them, raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar are not impressive. Everybody in this country knows it is the law that you must be registered and carry a registration certificate with you, and the absence of it is not excused. Supposing any one of these men wants to get a job; he has to produce his registration certificate if it is demanded.


Major James William Coldwell: He is not asked for it nowadays.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wonder just how the hon. member knows that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He doesn't know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He cannot possibly know it. He should not make the statement. It may be within his own personal knowledge-


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. I object to that. I have heard it stated authoritatively that many business firms have discontinued asking for the registration certificate, and I am speaking from knowledge that I possess. I am not going to allow the leader of the opposition to give any other implication to my remarks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course the hon. member can speak of what is within his own knowledge, but of necessity it must be, as mine would be, a very limited knowledge. It would not warrant such a general statement as he has made. The fact is that the registration, the issue of a registration certificate, and the carrying of the registration certificate are to-day prerequisites of citizenship in this country. We absolutely ignore that fact in this bill. Either it is the law, and is binding on you and me and every one who is obliged to register; or it is not the law. I cannot see any possible objection to carrying out the suggestion except that it might be an inconvenience to somebody. It will be known, if it is incorporated in this law, that people must, if requested, produce their registration certificates; those who vote, loyal citizens, will have them, and if they do not have them they can get duplicates of them.
I had not thought of moving an amendment because, after the expression of opinion from the committee itself, and no one among the members of the government having taken up the suggestion with approval, I knew it would not carry. It cannot possibly carry without

the concurrence of the government. But I have some hope that the government will approve the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre who, I understand, will speak to the matter under section 7, that it be a prerequisite in the case of a man asking to be vouched for that he should produce his registration certificate.


Thomas Reid: But are they not two different things-the right to vote and the right to be registered?


Richard Burpee Hanson: We make it compulsory to be registered, but we do not make it compulsory to vote. We have not gone so far in this country as to make voting compulsory, although from time to time the idea has been considered. I have often thought that we ought to adopt it and that we shall come to it some day. Men who are running for parliament would find themselves relieved of a good deal of the trouble they now have in getting people to perform the highest function of citizenship, namely the exercise of their franchise. The burden would be transferred from the candidate who wants the vote to the citizen himself, who ought to perform that function without having to be urged to do it. There is a great deal to be said for the principle of compulsion; we are just afraid to enact it, that is all. They have done it in Australia with good success. I happened some time in the late twenties to be a member of the privileges and elections committee when the Hon. John C. Elliott was chairman of that committee, and we discussed that question. The statistics then were that in Australia, where non-voters were subject to penalty, ninety per cent of the people voted. Here is the broad principle: the hon. member for New Westminster has brought it out by his interjection. We make it a condition of good citizenship in this country that a man shall be registered; it is compulsory; but we do not make it obligatory upon him to produce that registration certificate when he is exercising the franchise. Now, do not the two things seem to be incompatible in principle? I am going to support the amendment of the hon. member for Macleod. It is my own child. I did not intend to try to give it birth; but I may say-without carrying the analogy any further-that it is a good suggestion and should appeal to the membership of this committee. To refuse to give effect to it is to put a premium on disloyalty on the part of some people who have refused to carry out a function of citizenship by registering. You are going to give them all the benefits of citizenship, but you refuse to put any obligation on them in this connection.

Plebiscite Act
I appeal to the minister to give further consideration to this suggestion. I do not want him to pass a snap judgment at this moment. I think the idea has merit, or I never would have proposed it. A man who exercised the right of the franchise should produce evidence of his bona tides, of his identity. What better identification could there be than the production of his registration card? In certain cities they had a system whereby, before a man could exercise the municipal ballot, he had to produce a certificate of some kind of registration with his photograph on it. What in the world is the good of a registration certificate if we do not use it in a given case where it would be applicable? I beg the minister to accept this proposal, to incorporate in the bill at this place, where it seems appropriate, a provision that every person shall produce his registration certificate. The idea is commendable and should appeal to all members of this house. I hope the minister will not lightly turn down this suggestion. If needs be, he could hold over this section. [DOT]


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Would the minister or someone in the government inform this committee whether the registration certificate has to be produced at the time a man gets employment, or whether it is a joke, like many of the other regulations now in effect? Could we have that definite information? As I have already indicated to the committee, I know of two firms which over the weekend were in need of men; when certain men came for employment they could not produce their registration certificates, and these employers felt in duty bound not to hire them unless they could produce the certificates. Is that the law, or is it not?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I regret I cannot advise the hon. member as to the necessity, but I shall be glad to get him that information. Possibly that is not germane to the matter which we are now discussing-that is as to the requirement to produce a registration card for the purpose of getting employment-this being a question of voting on the plebiscite which will be held following the passage of this bill. I appreciate that the leader of the opposition raised the point some time ago, and if it were a matter of answering his remarks, my reply would appear somewhat ill-considered if I dealt with them without having the advantage of his previous suggestion, now followed by what the hon. member for Macleod has said. But the matter was discussed by the special committee, namely, the necessity of producing the registration card as a condition precedent to voting. The hon. member for Lake Centre mentioned the pro'	44561-64
posal the other night, and I think it will appeal to the members of the committee that those who have to be vouched for might properly be required, in urban areas, to produce the registration certificate. I believe the general principle of this legislation will recommend itself to the committee. We do not want to stifle any voting; we want as free and frank an expression of opinion as can be obtained. I would say unhesitatingly, I agree that in the case of vouching in urban municipalities the registration card should be necessary. But the leader of the opposition says that the registration card is a condition of citizenship. The registration card is made under a particular act of this parliament, and for failure to register there are particular penalties that are imposed. Are you going to use the right of franchise as a penalty for the non-performance of a duty which an act makes mandatory that you shall do and which has its own penalties if you fail to do it? It might be that some would register who had not done so, but each act should stand on its own feet. If you pass compulsory legislation, then I doubt your right in a new act to place a penalty which the act that originally compelled a certain thing to be done does not impose.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the fault of that act, then.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No, it is not the fault of the act. The act has its penalties. It might be the fault of some enforcement of the act, but not of the act itself.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Is there any penalty imposed upon the individual if he is unable to produce the registration certificate when required at the present time under the act?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Under the regulations under the act there is a definite penalty, and the act itself provides a penalty.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is the penalty carried out? Is the act a farce, or is the penalty carried out?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member for St. Paul's asks whether the act is a farce, or whether the penalty is carried out. All I will say is that to the best of my knowledge it is carried out. The act is not one that falls within my particular department, but I believe it is fairly carried out; at least an endeavour is made to carry it out. But when it is suggested that the registration card is the surest means of identification, that is scarcely correct. Since the last election-I cannot say since the registration took place-there has been a movement of the general population of Canada, involving about a million people.

Plebiscite Act


Gordon Graydon: I hope the minister will not fall into the habit of calling it a card. If it were a card it would not be so bad, but it is a piece of tissue paper which the government gave us a year or two ago, and it is hard to keep it in one's pocket.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am not going to argue as to the quality of the paper used. I still have mine, fortunately. I have it on me. The point I was going to make was this. While the registrants are required to report any change of address, there is no change of address endorsed on the registration certificate. In view of the fact that it is not as effective an identification certificate as it might otherwise be-


Richard Burpee Hanson: It has the registrant's signature and that is some identification.


Norman Alexander McLarty: There is no question it would be some identifying mark of the particular registrant; but when you consider the shifting of the population in the intervening time, I question very much if it would be of any great value. In addition to that, it would involve this: each enumerator making his enumeration would have to see individually the registration card of every registrant he put on his enumerator's list.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Each enumerator putting a man on the list would have to do that if you made it a condition, as suggested in this amendment. He would have to see the individual whom he was putting on his list.
Mr, HANSON (York-Sunbury): That does not follow.


Gordon Graydon: It is only for voting at the polling booth.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I withdraw that. The amendment says at the time of voting. I do suggest, however, that, especially in the rural areas, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar suggested, there would be quite a large number disfranchised by reason of their inability to produce the registration card. We argued in this committee yesterday about the ballot being a difficult one. If that is a fact, would it not be fair to leave penalties to the registration act itself, rather than make this act to some extent in the nature of a penalty by disfranchising men who are supposed to be punished under the original act.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has taken the line that if we compel a man to produce his registration card as a condition of voting, we are using the loss of his franchise as a penalty under the registration act. That is his argument, I submit that we had a precedent in
'Mr. McLarty.]
the last war. We had to produce our registration" card on almost every occasion when we played any public part. For instance, if I wanted to travel and wanted a railway ticket I had to produce the registration card, and if I did not do so I did not get the railway ticket. It might be held that the right to travel is a very important liberty of the subject, the liberty to move around as he likes; nevertheless it was held that one had to produce the registration card because it was considered that in a time of war it was essential to weed out those who did not have registration cards. I think the same applied to getting money orders, although I am not certain about that. At any rate we have a precedent to go by. Mr. Bennett had a very logical way of putting forward the argument on both sides and then adding, "on balance I favour so and so". I think it would be fair to say that, on balance, it would be fair to put this condition in; it may disenfranchise some but, on balance, it will have the great advantage of catching a number of people who had not the manliness or patriotism or obedience to law to register.
Amendment (Mr. Hansel!) negatived.
Section 4, subsection 1, agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 2-Disqualifications of ordinary voters.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
the minister state concretely and explicitly the disqualifications of ordinary voters contemplated by this subsection? At the moment I am not raising any objection to the clauses of this bill. I think I understand part of them; part of them I do not understand. Subsection 2 provides:
The persons disqualified from voting as ordinary voters at the plebiscite shall be -those persons disqualified from voting under the provisions of paragraphs (d) to (k), both inclusive, and paragraph (m) of subsection 2 of section 14 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938. ...
They are all set out; paragraph (m) is included to cover every person who is disqualified from voting under any law relating to the disqualification of electors for illegal practices. Those are quite clear. I call attention to paragraph (i):
(i)	every person who is disqualified by reason of race from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of the province in which he or she resides and who did not serve in the military, naval or air forces of Canada in the war of 1914-1918.
Paragraph: (j) refers to the order in council of 1898; I think that relates to the Doukhobors.
In particular I should like to know what provinces have passed legislation which would

Plebiscite Act
debar anybody of Japanese, Italian, Finnish nationality, or any of the nations with which this country is at war. The only province I can recall is British Columbia, but I do not pretend that my information is complete. I should like the minister to give us concretely what the effect of this subsection is. Who specifically will be debarred from voting under it?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I wonder whether my hon.
friend requires me to read the paragraphs of
section 14 of the elections act. I think they
pretty well speak for themselves.
*


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have all that, but I am speaking particularly of paragraphs (b) and (c). What is their effect?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The effect of paragraph (b) is, it applies only to those who have applied or who shall, prior to the taking of the vote, apply under the national war services regulations, sections 18 and 19, for exemption or postponement of military training. If my hon. friend will refer to those regulations, I believe he will find that section 18 applies to Doukhobors and Mennonites, and section 19 to conscientious objectors. It was deemed desirable to follow that form so as to identify clearly those affected by this disqualification.
In connection with the matter of race, or who would be covered by paragraph (c), I would say there is only one province in Canada which has passed legislation disqualifying any person whose origin is in a country at present at war with Canada: that province is British Columbia, and my hon. friend is quite correct in his interpretation of it. I do not think I can be more specific than that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then this refers concretely only to those whose racial origin is Japanese?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But there
is an exception to that, namely, those who served in the military, naval or air forces of Canada in the war of 1914-1918. Is there any information as to how many Japanese nationals there are who would have the right to vote under that?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That matter was brought up in the special committee by the hon. member for Cariboo. He went to some trouble to find the number who would be involved. He advises me that the number involved is 43.


Mr. TURGEON:: And they will not be at their own polling division and therefore not entitled to vote.


Alan Webster Neill: It applies to Chinamen in
some provinces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With
respect to section 18 of the national war services regulations 1940, which applies to Doukhobors and Mennonites, if a young Douk-hobor is called up under the regulations and applies for postponement, under those regulations he gets postponement but he has to perform certain other services or duties. If he applies for a ballot in this plebiscite he will get the ballot.


Grote Stirling: In eight provinces.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Under section 5.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But there is some regulation in British Columbia.


Grote Stirling: Yes. Paragraph (j) cuts
him out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then in
eight of nine provinces if he applies for the ballot he gets it and is entitled to vote, but loses his right to postponement. There is not one chance in a hundred that that young man will ever ask for a ballot, but it is left wide open for his father and his mother and his sisters and his cousins and his aunts to get a ballot and do all the dirty work he might have done.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If I might interject a
remark there, this subsection to which my hon. friend is referring applies only to the extent that the application has already been made, or will be made before the plebiscite is held. I think the argument he intends to direct to the committee might come appropriately under section 5.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But I think we have to read the two together. The young Doukhobor is unlikely to come forward and vote, but all his relatives who are of nonmilitary age will have the right to vote. Did the minister consider excluding those people? They are now excluded in British Columbia by virtue of provincial legislation, but I am thinking of other provinces. These people are conscientious objectors. It is against their religious tenets to fight. Why should they be allowed to vote on a question of war? Has the minister thought of that; and, if so, what is the answer? Why should they be allowed to vote? Why should the relatives of that young man who will not fight, who will not ask for a ballot for fear he will lose his postponement, be allowed to vote on a question of this kind?


James Gray Turgeon: May I say a word before the minister does. I have personal knowledge of one case-and I should think there would be
44561-64 i
Plebiscite Act

more-of a young man who is a conscientious objector. His father is a seriously wounded veteran of the last war. Because that young lad is a conscientious objector you would not stop that seriously wounded veteran and 'his wife from voting?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the case I have in mind at all. That is not under section 18; that is under section 19, and I am not referring to section 19. I am referring to the sect known as the Douk-hobors. Why should they be allowed to vote?


James Gray Turgeon: They are not in British Columbia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am told they are in eight out of nine provinces.


Mr. POWER:: No one has ever defined what a Doukhobor is. I have been trying to find that out for years. It is not a race; it is not a religion; it is not a sect-


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, yes, it is.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not been able to get anyone to tell me just what a Doukhobor is.


Grote Stirling: Surely that is the reason why this description was given some years ago, with the orders in council enumerated. Unquestionably it is a sect.
Mr, BOUCHER: It seems to me there is something of an anomaly as between (b) of subsection 2 of section 4, and section 5. It will be noticed that section 5 refers to any person who shall have voted at the plebiscite taken under the provisions of this bill, and provides that such person shall be ineligible to apply for or to be granted, on his application or on the application of another, postponement under the regulations. Paragraph (ib) of subsection 2 of section 4 provides that [DOT]every person who shall have applied personally -the word "personally" is not there, but that is the meaning-for a postponement, shall not be eligible to vote. In other words, we have one section saying that a man who has personally applied for postponement shall not be allowed to vote. Then in another section we say that a man who personally, or through an agent, has applied for a postponement, is in a different category. Therefore I say that if the wording of section 5 conveys the intention of this house, the same wording should be inserted in paragraph (b), which should provide that every person who shall have applied personally, or through someone else, for postponement, shall be ineligible to vote. I think the argument in the one case applies equally to the other. I should like to bring that to the attention of the minister, and to ask why the wording of the two sections should be different.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Under paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of section 4 it is provided that the application for postponement either is in now or will be in before the vote on the plebiscite. It does mot matter whether the application is made by the man himself or by another person; the application is in. In section 5 the provision relates to those who, subsequently to the taking of the plebiscite, maj' apply for postponement notwithstanding the fact that they voted.


Mr. BOUCHER:: If that were the meaning I would quite agree with the Secretary of State, but actually paragraph (b) says, "every person who shall have applied." I say a man may not have applied himself but someone else may have applied on his behalf, and under this section he would not be disqualified. That is the point that is brought out in section 5.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think under paragraph (b) the man has to apply personally, bearing in mind the very grounds that are laid down for postponement. An application would have to be made on those grounds, and it would have to be made personally. I wonder whether my hon. friend would object if, instead of dealing with section 5 at the moment, we leave the point he has raised for the time being, and I shall endeavour to deal with it when we come to section 5.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very
good.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Some time ago I asked the minister a question with regard to Japanese nationals. Under this bill are Japanese barred from voting in Ontario, Quebec, or any other province?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The answer would be yes.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Paragraph (a) of subsection 2 of section 4 provides that those disqualified from voting shall include:
(a) every person who at the date fixed as polling day at the plebiscite is detained or interned under the defence of Canada regulations.
I think every hon. member will realize that those who are detained or interned under the defence of Canada regulations fall roughly into two groups, those more or less pro-fascist and those more or les3 anti-fascist in their ideas. It is with particular reference to the anti-fascists that I should like to ask a question. These anti-fascists, who have already presented a petition to this house, have stated in no uncertain terms their desire to support the government's plebiscite, to vote in the affirmative on the question. These

Plebiscite Act
particular anti-fascists are neither enemies nor aliens. They are Canadian citizens; and I should feel that it was a serious miscarriage of justice if these men were not allowed the privilege of voting in the affirmative on this plebiscite. I wonder whether the minister could give me any assurance that this particular group of men, interned under these regulations, would have the privilege of voting affirmatively on this plebiscite.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am afraid I would be unable to give the assurance for which the hon. member asks. I am afraid I could not give any assurance as to who would vote in the affirmative on the ballot that will be submitted. However, I know the hon. member will realize-and I am not trying to take lightly her question-that, after all, if a person is interned, irrespective of the nature of his sympathies which caused him to be interned, it would scarcely be a regular or proper procedure to allow him to vote on a question of such serious import.


Robert Fair: Subsection 2 of section 4 reads:
(2)	The persons disqualified from voting as ordinary voters at the plebiscite shall be those persons disqualified from voting under the provisions of paragraphs (d) to (k), both inclusive, and paragraph (m) of subsection two of section fourteen of the Dominion Elections Act 1938. . . .
I have particular reference to paragraph (k) of section 14 of the Dominion Elections Act, which reads as follows:
(k) in any province, every person who is an inmate of an institution which is maintained by any government or municipality for the housing and maintenance of the poor, if such person is by the law of that province disqualified from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of that province, and did not serve in the military, naval or air forces of Canada in the war of 1914-1918.
I was born poor, as I believe we all were. When we die we shall all be in the same class again. But some of us to-day are in fairly comfortable circumstances, while others are fabulously rich. Others again are so poor that they have to be crowded together in institutions and supported by some government or municipality. I do not feel that we are dealing justly with these people. As I have pointed out on other occasions, if they had been given that to which they were entitled during their lifetime, they would not now have to be in institutions of this kind. We are sending men and materials overseas to fight for democracy, and I should like to see democracy practised at home so that those who come back will have something worth coming back to. They should not have the spectacle of seeing perhaps their fathers, mothers, brothers or sisters put
away in these institutions and being deprived of their right to vote. In order to bring this matter before the committee-and I hope to get a favourable decision-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Marshall):
That line 21 in subsection 2 of section 4 be amended to read:
"under the provisions of paragraph (d) to (j), both inclusive."
If this amendment is carried-and I earnestly hope it will be-it will have the effect of giving to the people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and British Columbia the same rights as are extended to the citizens of the other five provinces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
provinces permit persons in the institutions referred to in paragraph (k) to vote?


Norman Alexander McLarty: They are estopped from voting in the provinces mentioned by the hon. member.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The other five provinces allow them to vote.
Amendment (Mr. Fair) negatived: yeas, 12; nays, 57.


Grote Stirling: I think it was agreed that paragraph (i) of subsection 2 of section 14 of the Dominion Elections Act refers to the Japanese race so far as it is effective ini Canada. If that is the case, to whom does paragraph (c) in this section refer?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Paragraph (i) of subsection 2 of section 14 of the elections act applies to Japanese in British Columbia. By virtue of the additional section in this bill it is extended to those throughout Canada whose origin is that of an enemy country.


Grote Stirling: Paragraph (i) will apply to all nine provinces.
Subsection 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Persons who have voted not to be exempted from military service.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister was going to make a statement on this section.


Norman Alexander McLarty: There may be other hon. members who wish to speak on this section, but if not, I should like to deal somewhat carefully with the point raised by the leader of the opposition and to give an exact explanation in answer to his inquiry. It will be noted that this section does not exclude anyone from voting; but, on the other hand, if any person does vote, he is precluded from any subsequent postponement or exemption
Plebiscite Act

on the grounds set out in sections 18 and 19 of the national war services regulations. It leaves it optional with any voter whether he shall or shall not vote.
I think I 'should put this on the record because information was asked for by the leader of the opposition. I have no objection whatever to doing it, but of course I do not want to delay the passage of my own bill. It is urged, on the one hand, that the section is too rigorous in that it precludes any subsequent claim for exemption to anyone who has voted and who may be liable for service under the national war services regulations. On the other hand, it is claimed that it is too generous. I think that is the suggestion by the leader of the opposition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not for the man himself, but for his kin.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I was going to follow that up. It allows to vote those of a particular religious faith or who are conscientious objectors but who, on other grounds, are not capable of performing military service.
I should like to deal with the first suggestion. I believe it can be well admitted that those who are conscientious objectors are so because of their unwillingness to take human life and that they are willing to perform all other services, except this one, which might be required of any citizen. But in dealing with this phase of the matter, if you refer to the specific question itself you will find that there is only one particular pledge which the government has entered into and from which it seeks relief, namely, the matter of military service. This military service does, unfortunately, involve the taking of human life.
This is not a general election. Other considerations would apply in a general election which do not apply here. This is a plebiscite on one definite and specific question, and that question relates to military service, which those of military age might require to answer, but in the answering of which they are not vitally affected. For example, if the answer given by such were yes, what does it mean? It means that those who themselves are able to perform military service, but who on account of religious beliefs do not feel free to do so, are allowed to determine whether or not the government shall be freed from its pledge given in regard to one specific matter. In other words, the answer yes means that while they themselves are not involved, they are quite willing that those who do not hold the same religious beliefs might be compelled to assume obligations which they themselves are not prepared to assume.
On the other hand, if the answer is no, what does that involve? It involves this: Those

who are capable of bearing arms, but who on account of their religious beliefs believe that the taking of human life even in war time is unwarranted, simply say, "while that is our belief, at the same time we wish to restrain the government from breaking a pledge given to those who do not enjoy similar beliefs and whose convictions in the matter of military service are not the same as our own." Consequently, it would be unfair to allow the vote to those of military age who, while enjoying military capacity, are still free to claim exemption, no matter what the outcome of the vote may be. Therefore, the section has been framed in the manner in which it appears.
On the other hand it is urged that everyone whose religious belief, irrespective of whether he or she is capable of military service, bars them from military service, should be barred from voting as well. It has been pointed out to this committee that many of those who hold these beliefs are willing to do any other service, but they object to the taking of human life. That means this: Those incapable of bearing arms are willing to do everything that is physically within their power to do. They are in the same position as those other classes of the community who are incapable of bearing arms by reason of age or physical weakness.
To deprive them of voting would be contrary to the provisions of the Naturalization Act. That act may be more or less regarded as a contract between the Dominion of Canada and those who become citizens of this country. Let me read section 5 of that act:
A person to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted by the minister shall, subject to the provisions of this act, be entitled to all political and other rights, powers and privileges, be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities, to which a natural-boru British subject is entitled or subject, and as from the date of his naturalization have to all intents and purposes the status of a natural-born British subject.
The basis for this provision is that those who vote shall be subject to all the obligations, duties and liabilities to which a natural-bom British subject is entitled or subject. On the other hand, the obligations, duties and liabilities will be no greater on those enjoying such obligations, duties and liabilities than they are on a natural-born British subject. In other words, in placing this section in the bill, the government is not breaking faith but keeping faith. That is why the negative provision is put therein. It is not disfranchising those who will be subject to the obligations, duties and liabilities but it is saying that those who assume the right of franchise will be subject to the obligations, duties and liabilities.

Plebiscite Act


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree to a certain extent with the principle which the minister has just enunciated, but the same principle should apply to all those who are described as ordinarily resident in Canada. Although it is not so provided in specific terms, the mobilization act is not applied to those young men, refugees and others, who are British citizens but are not domiciled in Canada; in other words, they are here only for the duration of the war. I do not see why those people should have the right to vote if they are not themselves to be subject to conscription. It is the rule with all military boards not to put these British subjects into the Canadian army by virtue of the mobilization act. Therefore, how could they have the right to vote to send others overseas by virtue of any conscription law? That would be most unfair. I have already spoken on this subject on other occasions, and I now bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State who, I hope, will reach the same decision with regard to these refugees or British citizens temporarily resident in Canada as they do with respect to Mennonites, Doukhobors and conscientious objectors. I hope that the section will be made to apply to them so that they will have the right to vote only if they are to be available to the army. I should like to have an answer from the minister.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I did not quite catch the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata. I am afraid that it would be extremely difficult for me to amplify what I have already said on this particular section. It is not that I wish in any way to evade an answer, but I find that it is a little difficult for me to give one.


John George Diefenbaker: In his explanation of the rights of conscientious objectors, Doukhobors and Mennonites the minister made the statement that while they are not required to give military service they are required to give a like amount of service of a non-military character. I would point out that that is not my interpretation of the regulations, as I read the regulations, those who are conscientious objectors, Mennonites and Doukhobors enjoy a higher right of citizenship than do any other British subjects in Canada in that when they are called up under the mobilization act they are required to serve, building roads and the like, for a period of not more than four months and then they are through, although all others who are called up to serve in the military forces have to serve for the duration of the war. As a matter of fact, that very circumstance is causing a great deal of difficulty
throughout western Canada in that conscientious objectors, by serving for a few months in a camp or in one of the national parks, have finished their service to the state for the duration of the war, whereas the man who is not a conscientious objector must serve as long as the war lasts.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should just like to
make this clear. The mobilization act, of course, applies to all British subjects in this country except those who are not ordinarily resident in Canada, which means that those who are domiciled here are subject to conscription and those who are here but not domiciled in Canada are not subject to conscription. That is the real distinction that exists, although the language of the statute itself is rather vague. My point cannot be evaded. It is just as clear as crystal or spring water. It is that when these young blokes of military age come here to get away from their own country or from any theatre of war and be secure in Canada, I do not see why they should have the right to vote to send others to fight overseas in their stead. That is my point.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Chairman-


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask my hon.
friend the member for Davenport to sit down and wait until I am through.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was going to ask,
Mr. Chairman, if "blokes" is a proper appellation to apply to people coming here from England to train for service.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am fond of cockneys
but I do not like blokes. I have no objection to giving shelter to any man who needs it, but on the other hand I do not want our Canadian citizens to be controlled by those who are afraid to defend their own country, and who come here for shelter and are given the privilege of citizenship, when they are not at the same time willing to assume the obligations and duties of British subjects. That is my point. To allow them to vote would be unfair, and I know I can rely on my leader the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to take time to weigh this consideration. You cannot have a twoway policy, a policy of good citizenship for the men who are willing to fight for England, and another policy for those who do not want to fight for their country and come here for shelter. It is time that this should come to a stop, and I rely on the fairness of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, and their colleagues to settle the matter in justice to the parties concerned.
Plebiscite Act

Mr. MaoNICOL: Mr. Chairman, may I have your ruling whether an hon. member is right in calling young men coming-


Jean-François Pouliot: The word is found in the dictionary.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I ask you, sir, if the hon. member is right-


Jean-François Pouliot: It does not apply to any race in particular.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -in calling young men from the old country who come out here to train by the name "bloke"?


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman was not speaking of the chair or of any member of the house. I refer to May's Parliamentary Practice, twelfth edition, page 99, and citation 294:
If a member should say nothing disrespectful to the house or the chair, or personally appro-brious to other members, or in violation of other rules of the house he may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals.
That is why, I am afraid, I cannot rule out of order the remarks addressed to somebody outside this house.


Major James William Coldwell: I would ask the hon. member for Temiscouata if he can give us any particulars of the people to whom he refers. I have this in mind, that over the last two years, since the war broke out, or shortly afterwards, people have not been permitted to leave Great Britain without a special licence or special permit. I wondered whether he had any knowledge of any number of persons of this description to whom he referred, because I must say that if there are people who have come to this country to escape military or other duties in Great Britain, of course they should not be permitted to vote here if our own conscientious objectors are not permitted to vote-and they are not-and they should be treated on all fours with our own people. I should like to know whether the hon. member for Temiscouata has any definite knowledge of people of that description.


An hon. MEMBER:: He has not.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank my hon. friend for his remarks-he spoke with fairness-and I will give him any information that he wants. If we were to go together to the eastern townships, and many other places, we could see many of these people. But I will speak to him later about it.


Mr. LEADER:: I feel that I shall have to support the contention of the hon. member for Lake Centre and our old friend the hon.

member for Temiscouata. There are in my constituency a number of Mennonites-I do not believe we have any Doukhobors-and 1 feel that if these people, who have come to Canada and now enjoy the rights of citizenship under the protection of our government, refuse to fight for their adopted country, they are not entitled to a vote on a matter of this importance. I believe they are amply protected under the clause-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege; I did not make any such statement. I think the hon. gentleman must have misunderstood me. I was not dealing with the question of voting; I was dealing entirely with the question of conscientious objectors completing their service by four months' work instead of being required' to do work throughout the period of the war. I did not touch upon the question of the propriety of their right to vote.


Harry Leader: I am sorry. I did not mean to misinterpret the remarks of the hon. member. But I feel I am right in offering the suggestion that these men are amply protected. They can vote if they want to, but they lose their right to appeal for exemption, and I think that is using them fairly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Manner of voting by qualified voter whose name is not on the official list of voters.
John George Diefenbaker: I spoke on this
section yesterday, and suggested that as the section stands it provides a wide-open door for potential wrongdoers. It provides that those whose names are not on the voters' lists have, on the day the plebiscite vote is taken, as a result of being vouched for by someone ordinarily resident within the polling division, the right to vote. The penalty section leaves the person committing an offence under this section quite an easy way of escape, in that it says:
(3)	Any voter who vouches for an applicant voter knowing that such applicant voter for any reason is disqualified. . . .
-is guilty of an offence. In other words, any wrongdoer who wants to assist in getting large numbers of individuals to vote on the plebiscite would simply be required to swear a declaration, and he would be guilty of no offence under subsection 3 unless the prosecution could affirmatively establish that he knew that such applicant voter was disqualified, although he would be liable to perjury. In the discussion this evening as to the necessity of the production of the national

Plebiscite Act
registration certificate, the committee decided that such should not generally be necessary. I suggested yesterday, and I repeat, that in order to close the door against the possibility of any wrongdoing, or any general wrongdoing, being committed under this section, all who desire to vote and whose names are not on the voters' list should be required to produce their national registration certificates before the poll clerk or the returning officer. Many abuses which might otherwise arise under this section would thereby be avoided to a great extent. I trust the minister will see fit to consent to an amendment to this section, making it a prerequisite that those whose names are not on the voters' list shall be required to produce their national registration certificates before being granted the right to vote.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I thank the hon. member for Lake Centre for having called this matter to my attention earlier in the evening. I stated that I thought that when we came to section 7 the suggestion which had been made to this committee, namely, that those who had to be vouched for should produce registration certificates, would be a commendable proposal. I do believe, however, that we would be wise to limit the provision to urban centres, that is, where the population is over 3,500. I do not need to repeat the argument which was advanced by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar as to the rural areas. I suggest:
That section 7, subsection (2), be amended by adding, after the word "oath" in subparagraph (b), the word "and", and by adding another clause as fallows:
(c) in urban polling divisions only upon producing for inspection the registration certificate issued to such person under the National Registration Regulations, 1940. I
I would ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would be good enough to move that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I so move.


Thomas Langton Church: This is a most dangerous innovation to have in any plebiscite or elections act. It was tried in New York state a few years ago and led to all kinds of impersonation and intimidation, especially among voters who had been only a short time in the country, some of whom could neither read nor write. The section is one that should never be in the act. In the first place, there is nothing to prevent a voter from voting in every riding in Toronto, going from one riding to another, as long as he can find a man who knows him and vouches for him, taking an affidavit or making a declaration. We know what that means. The returning officer has no jurisdiction. I have never seen
such a thing in any elections act. The registration card is required in municipal elections; otherwise you cannot vote. As I say, I have never seen such a provision in any elections act and I have read a great many statutes.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I wonder whether the hon. member just heard the amendment that was moved. If they are vouched for in urban areas, they will have to produce registration cards.


Thomas Langton Church: Even admitting what the minister says, the principle is all wrong, of having such a clause in an elections act. It will lead to all sorts of confusion and it is an innovation that should not be allowed in any British legislature. Any man who has not been living in a polling subdivision for more time than this is not entitled to vote. Taking into account those who are on relief and those who are away, besides those who have moved out of the subdivision, I suggest that this provision should not be allowed. It is not allowed in connection with voting on property rights. Why should it be inserted in such a measure as this? It is beyond my understanding. I suggest that it is a grave mistake for this legislature to adopt such a principle.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Before section 7 passes, I should like the minister to tell the committee why the present elections act has been departed from in this particular as applied to the cities. I understand that in the rural areas if an elector is off the voters' list he can be vouched for by someone who is on the list, which I presume would conform to paragraph (a) of section 2. But I do not know of any elections act which allows a man not on the voters' list to be given a ballot on taking the appropriate oath himself. I do not know what the appropriate oath is. There is some merit in section 7, because it does provide for folks who are left off the list. In the recent York South by-election there were thousands who were left off the list, whole streets, whole apartment houses, and the residents there were not able to vote. Perhaps it should have been their duty to see that they were on the list. Had they done so, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidate might have been defeated. However, one cannot tell how people would have voted. The hon. member interrupts me, but he does not know. He got 10,000 to 12,000 Liberal votes and that is why he is here, but he will not get them in a general election. I may say, Mr. Chairman, I am a little fed up with having it said that York South voted C.C.F. It did not; it voted Liberal plus C.C.F. However, coming back to the question, I would ask the minister why the regular urban qualifications of voters have been abandoned in this section.
Plebiscite Act


Norman Alexander McLarty: I can give the reasons very briefly and they are extremely practical ones. The first one is to save time, and the second is to save expense. There is nothing new in this procedure. It was adopted in rural sections and has been in existence for some time, being applied' to municipalities up to 10,000 population. Prior to 1923 it applied in such cities as Edmonton and Calgary-rather substantial ones

and worked satisfactorily. When the matter was being considered in committee the chief electoral officer estimated that it would save at least a week in the taking of the plebiscite if this system were followed. He now advises me it would save a longer time than that. In addition, it will eliminate the necessity of a court of revision, the cost of which would be $200,000 extra; and if the list were printed after the court of revision was held, there would be an additional cost of $350,000. The penalties provided by the section are severe-at least as severe as the penalties provided in the elections act-and I suggest that with the amendment which has now been moved, the requirment of vouching and the necessary declaration, and the production of the registration card, the opportunities for fraudulent voting are pretty well reduced to a minimum. However, the main reasons, in answer to the hon. member for Davenport, are the two that I have mentioned-time and expense.


Thomas Langton Church: Is a man allowed to vote only once? In the declaration is he required to state that he has not voted before? In the old electoral law a man could vote where he had property. In my first vote I voted in York South because I had a vacant lot and I voted in East Toronto as a resident. Is it a case of one man, only one vote?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The answer is yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Notice of result of plebiscite published in Canada Gazette.
Mrs. CASSELMAN:: Is any provision being made for members of this house to vote? If the house is in session, many members will be away from their polling divisions.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The situation will pretty well take care of itself. If they reside in Ottawa for twenty-eight days before the plebiscite, they will be entitled to vote in the city of Ottawa.


Gordon Graydon: The sections have been carried pretty rapidly, and* I should like to ask a question on clause 6. I have no doubt it must be covered by the language of the clause, but it is not clear to me. There are a

number of nurses in England at the moment attached to some part of the corps there, and I am wondering whether this language would cover those nursing sisters over there.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Clause 6 to which the
hon. member refers was.very carefully drawn in consultation with the judge advocate general in the Department of National Defence. It was drawn broadly enough so that all branches of the service would be covered, and I am advised that the classes to which he refers would be covered by this section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Notice of result of plebiscite published in Canada Gazette.
Thomas Langton Church: Is that to be just an
obituary notice before its final burial in the archives? I think so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Regulations by governor in council.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This I think is the section under which the regulations may be discussed. I have gone through the regulations for ordinary voters but confess that I have not been able to go over the service regulations. I have one suggestion to press, about the ' numbered ballots. I think the minister agreed to look after that. I do not think it can be done by way of amendment. Will he give an undertaking that the regulations will be changed in some manner, and put that on the record?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall be glad to do so.
I gave an undertaking last night to the hon. leader of the opposition. If he would like to have it placed' on the record, I will see that it is placed on Hansard.


James Arthur Ross: In connection with
the hours of voting, regulation 18, for ordinary voters, clause 5, provides that the voting hours shall be from eight to six, but I think it was stated yesterday that they would be extended to seven o'clock in the evening. There was some discussion from the industrial point of view and that of the farmers of rural Canada that the hours should be extended until eight in the evening. Many of these industrial workers and farmers are labouring under a handicap in producing food and materials for the war effort, all of which are very necessary. We should1 do all we can to assist them, and extending the time until eight o'clock in the evening would help them in many respects to cast their votes. Has the minister given thought to that?

Plebiscite Act


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, it was given consideration. I might mention that in the original bill the voting hours had been fixed at eight to six, and the special committee after consideration decided it would be wise to extend the time until seven o'clock at night. That makes a rather long day, and the pay for poll clerks is not as large as at a general election. The thought was that unless we are prepared for a substantial increase in expense, the hours should not be extended further.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I call attention to
the fact that in a great many of the war industries men work until six o'clock at night. These industries are so far from their homes and polling subdivisions that it would be impossible for thousands of them to reach the polling subdivision in one hour. I know that the law allows them two hours in which to vote, but that provision is seldom invoked, and I doubt if it would be in this case. If you close the polls at seven o'clock, you will automatically disfranchise a great many of those working in war industries.


Norman Alexander McLarty: In view of the observations made and the fact that the government is anxious to secure the largest possible vote, I am agreeable to having the regulations amended to keep the polls open from eight in the morning until eight at night.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: In the draft regulations for service voters, No. 23 provides:
(1) The vote of every Canadian service voter shall be cast before any commissioned officer. . . .
What about a soldier on leave? He is an ordinary voter, but some deputy returning officers might say he cannot vote except before his commissioned officer.


Norman Alexander McLarty: My advice is that the man on leave can vote as an ordinary voter at home.


Thomas Langton Church: That is a most dangerous principle.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Should not that be changed, because the minister knows, as we all do, that some deputy returning officers might take exception to that?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I assure the hon. member that consideration will be given to his suggestion. After all, the regulations are not being passed to-night.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On page 4 of the same regulations provision is ma^e that there shall be six scrutineers to count the votes; the Prime Minister to appoint two, the leader of the opposition two, and the other groups two between them. It also says
that two have to be for the negative and two for the affirmative. The leader of the opposition says he is for it. What about the Prime Minister?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think he has made the same declaration.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What kind of box are you in?


Norman Alexander McLarty: As far as possible the appointment of scrutineers will be the same as for the taking of the overseas vote at the last election. There may be some difficulty, but I do not think the leader of the opposition will be embarrassed about finding some man overseas who may not agree with him but still could act as a proper scrutineer. I do not think there will be any practical difficulty.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The matter of scrutineers at civilian polls is also important. As I recall the regulations, those who are supporting the affirmative are entitled to have two representatives present, and those supporting the negative are entitled to have two. Does the minister think that is going to be very effective? I know the question of scrutineers at the civilian polls is rather difficult. I do not think it is my duty to suggest scrutineers. I should like the minister to give consideration to this. In my province at all events the men appointed deputy returning officers are usually of a very good type. If a man is considered to be below par, shall I say, people know about it; representations are quietly made to the returning officer, and he looks into it and in many cases will agree that that man should not be a deputy returning officer. I think the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Hill), at whom I am looking, will agree with that. And we have practically no election frauds.


Gordon Graydon: Of course that is New Brunswick.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
speaking only of my personal experience. They do not countenance personation. I am sure that the two deputy returning officers at the poll where I am accustomed to work on election day would not allow anything like that.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: That applies to all Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I would hope so; I cannot say except from my own personal information. The suggestion I have made is that in the absence of anyone appearing as scrutineer for or against, perhaps the deputy returning officer could be instructed to appoint two competent, qualified voters, to
Plebiscite Act

act as scrutineers. That is just a suggestion I throw out, but it is something to which I have given some thought. In an ordinary party election, of course, we all have our own men on whom we rely to see that the law is carried out. Here it is not going to be the duty of any particular person to see that scrutineers are appointed, and I am afraid that in many rural polls no one will be appointed. Certainly they are not going to be paid under this schedule, and they will not spend the whole day there of their own accord. Would the minister give consideration to the appointment of qualified voters at a given poll by the deputy returning officer, in the event that no one is appointed to represent the affirmatives or the negatives? I point out to him, of course, that this may involve a demand for payment. I do not like the idea of paying scrutineers. It ought not to be done; it is a duty that men owe their party, but I am afraid in some cases it is not so considered. However, I just throw that out as a suggestion.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I quite agree with the leader of the opposition that the method suggested is by no means ideal, and subject to the qualification he offers in regard to the matter of payment I think his suggestion is one to which we can give very serious consideration when the regulations are being drawn up.


Thomas Langton Church: Section 9 gives the governor in council power to make rules and regulations under this statute which will have the force and effect of law. That has been condemned all along the line in Lord Hewart's work, "The New Despotism". Here we have a statute fixing dates, establishing methods, giving the text of the question, stating those who are excepted, providing for the votes of soldiers and so on, and now we are going to hem in this statute with a provision which will permit the governor in council to pass regulations which will have the force of law, under which fines, penalties or imprisonment may be imposed, outside the whole scope of the measure. Do you see where we are heading, Mr. Chairman? We have about four hundred different controllers and boards operating to-day under the War Measures Act. Each of these boards can fine anyone up to $5,000 or impose a year's imprisonment for the breach of a regulation passed by order in council. That is what we have in Canada to-day, government by the bureaucrats. I say we must beware of them, because this is a principle which never should be adopted by any British legislature. Why, the governor in council can change the whole intent of the statute. It can pass rules and regulations,

having the force of law, varying everything contained in the first eight sections of this bill, and I wish to protest against it. Under this bureaucratic government these various controllers and boards can impose fines and imprisonment without this high court of parliament knowing anything about it. I do not see the need for this provision. Those who may vote are set out clearly; the time of the vote, the appointment of officers and all that sort of thing are already settled, under the elections act. I think it is all wrong.


Mr. McGREGOR:: Will the overseas vote be credited to provinces or ridings, or what has the government in mind in that connection?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It will be dealt with as suggested the other day, as one vote.


Angus MacInnis: Are all the regulations
to be passed under this bill included in these two volumes I have in my hand?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I should think they
would be complete. Certainly they are as complete as they can be, bearing in mind the suggestions which have been made tonight, which might lead to some amendment of them.
Mr. MacINNIS ; I think that is important, because it has been a very well-known policy of the Liberal party that parliament should decide in all these matters. Here we have a bill composed of ten sections, which are not very long. Then, after the bill is passed by the house, we have a volume of regulations covering -one hundred pages, together with a second volume of some thirty pages, and section 9 of this bill states that "the governor in council may, for the purpose of this act, make such regulations as are expedient for the effectual taking of the plebiscite," and so on. Then subsection 3 of section 9 provides:
Any regulations made under this act shall have the same force and effect as if enacted in this act.
Usually there is a phrase included in sections of this kind providing that such regulations as are made must not be inconsistent with the act itself, but there is no such limiting clause here. The minister has -not been listening -to me; he has been in a very earnest conversation with the two hon. gentlemen sitting in front of him. That may be quite interesting, but for the moment , I think the sections of -this bill are more important. I have been pointing out that there is no limit on the regulations which.

Plebiscite Act
may be passed by the governor in council under this bill. They may pass regulations that are inconsistent with it.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If my hon. friend will
refer to subsection 2, he will see a limitation [DOT]there.


Angus MacInnis: Subsection 2 reads:
Such regulations shall, as near as may be
That is pretty wide, isn't it?
-conform to the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938* with such additions and modifications as may be deemed necessary', and shall include special provisions for the taking of the votes of Canadian service voters.
If the regulations were included in these two volumes, and if they had come before the committee, then there would be no great objection to them, but here we are passing a short bill in which we give the governor in council power to extend it to whatever extent they may deem fit. As I have pointed out already, the usual phrase, "regulations not inconsistent with this act" is not included in the section at all. I claim that this power is too wide to give any government, particularly a government that is continually claiming that parliament is going to decide. Parliament certainly is not deciding here. Parliament is getting a mere outline of the bill, and the government takes the power to extend it as far and as wide as it may deem fit.


Norman Alexander McLarty: May I say just a word
in reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East, and especially his specific reference to inserting the words "not inconsistent with this act." I suggest that that would have very little, if any, meaning if put in the bill. What he probably has in mind as to the regulations would not be inconsistent with the elections act in which those regulations occur. The intention to cover that is clearly stated in subsection 2 of section 9, which states:
Such regulations shall, as near as may be


Angus MacInnis: How near is "as near as may be"?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is about as approximate as you can come, keeping in mind that one is an election and the other is a plebiscite. In other words, in this case there are not candidates running, and it is necessary that there be some variation by reason of the changed circumstances. This is the clause that was inserted in the 1898 act. When my hon. friend deals with penalties, I suggest that there is not a single penalty under the regulations which has not been passed upon
by the parliament of Canada. In other words, the objection which has been raised that penalties are included without parliamentary sanction cannot apply in this case. I believe that there is no intention of amending those regulations which have already been placed before the special committee of this house except to the extent that may be necessary in order to make the same workable arrangement, or within the limitations of the undertakings given to this committee to-night.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: To revert for a moment to the hours of voting, in federal, provincial and municipal elections the vote polled between eight and nine o'clock in the morning is practically negligible; in fact there is only a small vote cast during the entire forenoon. From eight in the morning until eight in the evening makes a long day. The remuneration for deputy returning officers and poll clerks is to be less for this plebiscite, and since many people are employed on war work who were available on previous occasions, there may be difficulty in securing help. It will be especially hard on women who are occupying these positions to have to work a twelve-hour day. I would suggest that it would be better to have the opening hour at nine o'clock. There is no necessity with this plebiscite of having a compilation of the returns the same evening as is the case with other elections. I think an eleven-hour day would be more advantageous.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask just why the government has decided that the soldier vote shall be counted en bloc. In the last dominion election the soldier vote was counted according to constituency. We over here think it is desirable to know how the soldiers vote by constituencies. I should like to know how my soldier constituents vote. If the soldier vote is counted en bloc, it will not be possible to know how the sentiment of the soldiers is spread. No good reason has been given why this is being done. In fact I do not think any good reason can be given. I ask the minister to give some further consideration to this matter. I shall want to say something on subsection 3 when he has given me an explanation.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The only reason that was suggested was to have a practicable working out of the plan for taking the vote of the soldiers. In an ordinary election where candidates are running, the votes would necessarily have to be referable to a particular constituency, but in this plebiscite it is simply a matter of answering yes
Plebiscite Act

or no. As I suggested the other day, the procedure contemplated is to segregate them in lots of 500, take out the inner envelope and put it in the ballot box. I wonder whether the effort of obtaining the information desired by the hon. gentleman is worth the trouble it entails. There was no subtle reason for not doing it the other way; it was just a matter of convenience.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite appreciate the argument the minister has made with regard to constituencies, but that would not hold good with regard to provinces. Why could w'e not have the vote summarized by provinces? That would not be quite as difficult, and it should be possible to do it. I ask the minister to give consideration to this when he is considering the regulations.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall be glad to. I do not know just exactly what it would involve, but it certainly would be more simple to do it by provinces than by constituencies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That would be a compromise anyway.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I assure my hon. friend that consideration will be given to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is about all I can ask. Then on the question of regulations by order in council, I pointed out long ago that this power of making legislative regulations is wrong. The power to make regulations for instructional and interpretative reasons is quite proper, and that is the principle in the elections act. Subsection 2 reads:
Such regulations shall, as near as may be, conform to the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, with such additions and modifications as may be deemed necessary, and shall include special provisions for the taking of the votes of Canadian service voters.
Necessarily there will be some substantive enactments under these regulations as they are now. They may be changed1 at any time. Is there any finality to these regulations? When they are once proclaimed, they may be changed. I do not suggest that they would be changed for any ulterior purposes; it might he necessary to change them to make them completely operative. That is just the danger of having this sort of thing in regulations, and I want to register once more my protest against doing it in this way. Under the elections act the regulations are largely directional or instructive. The great bulk of the law surrounding the taking of this plebiscite, for both the civilian arid the soldier vote, is to be found in the regulations. The statute that we are considering to-day is' merely an enabling statute giving the power. That is all fMr. McLarty.]
it is, with certain limitations as to qualification, disqualification, the character of the ballot and that sort of thing. The whole procedure is provided for in the regulations which do not come before parliament. They are enacting regulations, and therefore they are objectionable. I do not intend to hold up the bill, but I think this is the third time that I have pointed out that this is an objectionable principle in legislation. For a party that used to howl against government by order in council, as hon. gentlemen opposite did from 1930 to 1935, it is a complete reversal of form. It is not correct, but I do not have any hopes that my protest will be of any avail.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister for a clarification of one point in connection with the appointment of enumerators, deputy returning officers and poll clerks? Do I understand that the regulations here with respect to these appointments follow in every respect the appointments made in 1940 under the Dominion Elections Act? If so, I would ask this further question. I have not the particular section under my hand, but I recall that there was a special section in the act whereby the chief electoral officer was empowered, in cases where there was a floating population and for other special reasons, to declare a certain municipality or division to be an urban section in wdiat otherwise was a rural constituency. During the 1940 election a number of these urban municipalities were created by virtue of the latitude thus allowed to the chief electoral officer. I would ask the minister if in taking the vote on the plebiscite the same procedure will be followed as in the 1940 election with respect to creating these urban municipalities in rural divisions, or will someone have to make application to the chief plebiscite officer for the purpose of having a particular division made an urban one instead of a rural one as in 1940?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I- understand that the procedure included in the regulations is the same as for the election of 1940.


Gordon Graydon: Does that mean that we shall have to go through the same procedure again in order to have a particular part of a rural constituency declared urban after it has already been so declared in the election of 1940, upon evidence submitted?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I understand that the procedure will not have to be repeated, but that if the divison was urban in 1940, it will be urban for the purpose of taking this plebiscite.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Some days ago the newspapers had the statement that the northwest,

Plebiscite Act
territories, particularly the settlement of Yellowknife, would vote on the plebiscite, but I do not notice it in the bill.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is provided in section 2, paragraph (d).


Frederick Davis Shaw: I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I do feel that there is one other matter which has thus far not been discussed and which should be given consideration. I am not sure that what I am about to say deals particularly with section 9, but it seems to be a case of either section 9 or never. I have in mind the question of an educational campaign and regulations that may be brought down regarding, say, a government-sponsored campaign. A few weeks ago the press dispatches indicated that the government was at that time contemplating purchasing radio time from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as was done in the last general election, and that certain time periods would be allocated to the various groups in this house for the purpose of expressing their views on the plebiscite to the people of Canada. I have not heard the matter discussed since then, but if the government are contemplating such a step, there are a number of things which should be borne in mind.
First, if moneys are to be taken out of public funds for the purpose of sponsoring any type of educational campaign the radio time should not be allotted only to government leaders, but all other groups in this house should be allotted a certain portion of time-I might even go so far as to say an equal amount of time. I would ask the Secretary of State if it is the government's intention to purchase time on the Canadian broadcasting network for the purpose of carrying on an educational campaign and, if so, what method is to be followed in allocating time to the various groups in this house?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think the only reply I can give to the hon. member is that so far no consideration has been given to the point which he raises or the campaign he suggests, but I have no doubt that when consideration is given, if it is given, his observations will be borne in mind.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Section 9 says that the regulations for the taking of the plebiscite shall conform as nearly as possible to the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act. Will the procedure under the Dominion Elections Act be used in setting up the machinery for taking the vote? I have in mind the selection of returning officers for the various constituencies. Will the 1940 returning officers be used, or has the government in mind selecting a fresh list? Has the government considered asking the Canadian Legion and other national organizations to make suggestions? I would also ask the minister how he proposes to select the deputy returning officers for the various polls. In the 1940 election a lot of voluntary -service was given by service clubs and similar organizations, and I am quite sure it would be possible to get a lot of voluntary service on this occasion.
' Does the government propose to accept voluntary sendee, or does it propose to set up a lot of election machinery pretty well on a patronage basis? The public, I am sure, will be resentful if, when a war is on, we propose to spend one and a half million dollars, a large part of which is to be spent on a patronage basis. If the Canadian Legion, service clubs and other organizations interested in public welfare were approached, I believe they would be glad to make suggestions, and their membership might even be willing to give voluntary service in taking the plebiscite vote. How will the election machinery be set up?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The intention is to have the same returning officers as acted in the election of 1940. There necessarily are some changes under section 8 of the elections act. The returning officers have the appointment of the deputy returning officers, and the deputy returning officers appoint the poll clerks. I believe the suggestion made by the hon. member for Weyburn is one that has been drawn to the attention of this committee, namely, the advantage that will accrue if we take the opportunity of employing as much voluntary help as is available, and I understand that steps are being considered whereby advantage will be taken of that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That just means that all the returning officers are political appointments. They are now. Everyone in New Brunswick is a political supporter of the government, and they will all be paid out of public funds. They will make political appointments. They are there in most cases entirely because of their politics. They are not there because of any special qualifications. The returning officers will appoint the deputy returning officers, who will also be political appointees, and the poll clerks will also be political appointees.
There was an effort made prior to the last federal election to have the nominations of returning officers divided up in a measure, In some constituencies there was, I believe, a break. My colleague tells me that 'there was. In mine, in the rural districts, the returning officer absolutely refused to appoint
Plebiscite Act

anybody but a man of his own selection. In a city or an urban district, I believe there was a provision in the law whereby there was a fifty-fifty break or something like that. Of course, this is a political patronage system, and the government must get away from that, in this connection, just as quickly and as far as they can, if they want to obtain wholehearted support in favour of this plebiscite. I hear some hon. members laugh. I mean every word I say about that. The more partisan a tinge you give to this, the less likely it is to receive the cooperation of the public.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sure of it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I believe there will be a good deal of disappointment at the statement we have just had from the minister. For all that he has tried to make it sound as pleasant as possible, the fact remains that, as the leader of the opposition has said, what we are going to have is a political set-up in the taking of this plebiscite, and it will not be received in a very kindly fashion. I believe that one of the most successful things which was ever done in this country was handled on a cooperative and largely voluntary basis, when the registration was taken in June or July, 1940, at a cost of less than $900,000, over a period of three days. It was done at so low a figure because hundreds of people, irrespective of politics, race or creed, gave their services, thinking they were performing a national duty. That sort of thing should be capitalized upon again. But apparently it is not to be. Some members of the public resent the plebiscite now; they will resent it a great deal more if they have reason to believe that public funds are being used very largely to support patronage. That is what it is going to mean. I have no objection to the same returning officers being used as were employed in 1940, if some attempt is made to pick the deputy returning officers on a nonparty basis. Why not ask them to set up nonpartisan committees representing different viewpoints in the community, and so get a cooperative endeavour in the district? But if, as the Prime Minister has been asking them to do, all groups in this house go out and try to rally the people of Canada to give a preponderantly affirmative vote, and at the same time the machinery is set up on a purely patronage partisan basis, the two things will gibe very poorly, and a very bad impression will be created throughout the country. To talk of asking a few people here and there to do the work on a voluntary basis is not enough. You must either set it up on a non-

partisan basis, and then form representative non-partisan committees in the different districts, or leave it the way the minister has outlined it-which would be a purely pork-barrel affair, and would disappoint the public generally.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the same connection may I say just one word before the Prime Minister speaks. There is the position of enumerator, which is much [DOT] more important than the others, because that is worth the most money. Are those positions to be filled on a political partisan basis? I suggest to the Prime Minister that he give some consideration to this question if he wants the plebiscite helped along.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was just rising to say that there is nothing that I should deplore more than that anything connected with the taking of the plebiscite could be made an instrument of political patronage. I agree with those who say that it would completely defeat the purpose of obtaining the kind of cooperation which is most desirable. I see no necessity for it, and personally, if it were done in that way, I should abhor the whole business. I did not hear what the Secretary of State said, but I am quite sure that he had not in mind anything of the kind. His references were, I understand, to the appointment of the returning officers, and there has to be consideration given to the selection of certain officers who are already known.
But when it comes to choosing persons for such positions as that of enumerator, of which the leader of the opposition has just spoken, I can see no reason in the world why some arrangement should not be made between the different parties in the house which would satisfy everyone that we desire to have a perfectly impartial administration of the machinery of the plebiscite. Personally I think the citizens of Canada ought to welcome the opportunity of giving their services very largely, if not completely, voluntarily in connection with the taking of the plebiscite. I suggested the other evening that those who are appointed to any position might be told that while there is, perhaps, a fee attached to their services, the government would welcome receiving it back from them as an expression of patriotism in connection with that part of our war effort. I do not think that is too much to ask of the kind of persons who would be best qualified to fill the different offices under this measure. There should be in connection with it as much in the way of voluntary effort as can be obtained with a sense of security, and as much as possible in

Plebiscite Act
the way of cooperation of all parties in respect to it. The details of working that out might require a conference between the leaders of the different groups. Certainly, whenever I have heard the matter discussed and in discussing the matter with my colleagues on a prior occasion, that is the view we all had. Reference was made to some recent election in which the enumerators were chosen by the different parties-some from one party, some from the other.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was, I believe, in urban districts, and only in urban districts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Only in urban districts.


Grote Stirling: And, in rural districts, in the old-fashioned way, as in these regulations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I think we must try to introduce a new fashion if we can, as far as this proposed plebiscite is concerned. At any rate I have no hesitancy whatever in expressing emphatically my opinion on this matter. I should deplore seeing it made in any sense of the word a political patronage affair. I shall do all on my part to impress upon those who have to do with it that it be made as largely as possible a matter for voluntary effort, so administered as to ensure cooperation between all parties on the understanding that it is intended to be as fair and square as may be possible.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad to be able to agree with the Prime Minister when he is taking that attitude. Would he consider urging the returning officer to use for deputy returning officers, wherever possible, returned soldiers of the last great war?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the suggestion is a very good one. I should not like to commit the minister who is in charge of the bill, or any of my colleagues, without a conference on the matter, but the kind of suggestion which the hon. member has just made appeals very strongly to me personally and will, I believe, appeal equally strongly to others.


Major James William Coldwell: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that this be carried out as far as possible on a non-partisan basis? I do not think we can call it wholly non-partisan, but let us endeavour to get all the parties to agree as far as possible to the appointment of the officers. At the present time most, if not all of the returning officers, are Liberal appointees and, I believe, Liberals. If that is the case, they will remain so, but let the other political parties appoint either the
deputy returning officer, or the poll clerk, alternately, as the case may be. I think then a large measure of cooperation could be obtained, it being recognized that the government would appoint the returning officers. The other officers might be appointed alternatively by the political parties interested or represented in constituencies. In my opinion, as far as possible this should govern not only in this particular matter but in other matters during the war. There is a great deal of resentment, in constituencies represented by members who are not on the government side of the house, at the petty political patronage shown here and there, and it does interfere with the war effort. I believe the Prime Minister sincerely wishes to avoid that. He does not want to have that obtain during the war. He said so early in the war and I take his word. But in my own province of Saskatchewan there is a great deal of criticism of the political appointments that have been made of inspectors and others, and if we tried to carry this out on an all-party basis we would do much to unite our people and obtain a good vote, and probably a vote that would be more likely to be the vote which the Prime Minister wants in this plebiscite-an affirmative vote. I am certainly strongly in favour of trying to eliminate that kind of politics from our effort during these war years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
reassured by the Prime Minister's statement and I thank him for going as far as he has. The returning officer is the key man all the way through, and if he is not directed to conform, in many instances he will not do so. I remember trying in the last election to get a returning officer to eliminate a certain deputy returning officer who, in my opinion, was not qualified or fit. My recollection is that I even went so far as to telegraph to the chief electoral officer. The chief electoral officer did what he could, but he had no authority. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he go the whole way and review the returning officers, because, after all, they are the key to the whole situation, and if they are partisan it is difficult to eliminate partisanship down through the ranks.


John Ritchie MacNicol: At the time the registration was taken, the minister in charge, who, I believe, was at the time the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was, I may say, quite fair. As far as my riding was concerned- and I believe this extended pretty well to other cities and towns, though I cannot speak for
Plebiscite Act

the rural districts-I found his administration in the taking of the registration eminently fair. In Davenport the appointments were divided between Liberals and Conservatives, because in the previous election there had been only two parties running in that riding. In some other ridings where there were three parties running in the previous election, the appointments were divided up after that manner. I am glad to hear hon. members endorsing the recommendation I made at the time the elections act was enacted. I strongly advocated then-and I was very much disappointed that my recommendation was not carried out-that the government of the day name the returning officer in the ridings, and that the opposition, or the other parties as the case might be, name the clerk. I suggested that the government of the day name the returning officer and the deputy returning officers in the polls, and the opposition or the candidate of the party which was next highest in the previous election name the clerks, so as to eliminate politics. I am glad to hear hon. members recommending the same thing, and I hope that if there is an amendment to the elections act, that suggestion will be followed.


Mr. CLEAVER:: I wish to add my support to the suggestion which has been made that the vote should be taken on a strictly nonpartisan basis, and I would go further and suggest that we should not leave the matter in the air merely as a pious hope. I think definite instructions should issue from the cabinet minister in charge to the election officer explicitly informing him that all of the officers, deputy returning officers and clerks, are to be appointed on a strictly non-partisan basis; that is to say, that each of the major political parties in all the ridings should definitely make one-half of the appointments of deputy returning officers and one-half of the appointments of clerks. I would further urge that this entire work should be done on a strictly voluntary basis as a war service. The national registration in my riding was done on a straight fifty-fifty basis. The Conservative party appointed half of the officials and the Liberal party half, and all did the work without cost to the government, even for the hiring of halls. I would urge that that practice be followed on this occasion, and that the entire cost of the plebiscite, the entire work in connection with it, be on a voluntary basis, with the exception, of course, of the printing.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: There is one difficulty that presents itself to me. I have not had an opportunity to look at the regulations; but according to the instructions under the Dominion Elections Act, the chief returning officer appoints the deputy returning officer,

and the chief returning officer has nothing whatever to do with the appointment of the clerk. The deputy returning officer has the right to appoint the clerk. I say this because I had occasion to look it up at the time of the last election. I did have an arrangement with the chief returning officer for the district, but the arrangement fell down because at the last minute it was pointed out to me that under the law he had nothing to do with the appointment of the clerk

that was the duty of the deputy returning officer. These regulations, based on the instructions under the elections act, will place that in the same position as it is in the elections act, and unless the regulation is changed I do not see how there will be a division of appointment as far as clerks are concerned.


Mr. WHITE:: May I say a word with regard to what the Prime Minister has said about having appointments on a non-partisan basis. Unless the instructions are followed out, it may work out in the same way as it did at the time of the taking of the census, because at that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce issued instructions to the census commissioner in each riding that the appointments were to be on a non-partisan basis, divided between the major political parties. He also pointed out that returned soldiers were to have the preference, and so on. The census commissioner in my riding refused to answer a letter or to give me any information. I submitted to him a list covering all the polling divisions. He would not appoint a single man I suggested, and in the village in which I reside he appointed a man who had obtained exemption from military service in 1914 as a conscientious objector. I communicated with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who replied that he was much disturbed at my letter and would look into the matter at once. I received no further communication from him, and that man who was a conscientious objector in 1918 proceeded to take the census in my village. If instructions are given, unless they are followed up and it is seen to that they are carried out, the whole thing will be a farce, just as it was at the time of the taking of the census. I suggest to the committee that returned soldiers and returned soldiers only, where available, be appointed as enumerators, deputy returning officers and poll clerks.


James Arthur Ross: I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister express himself as he did. But I had exactly the same experience in my riding as a previous speaker during the taking of the census; the lists we submitted were entirely ignored. I go back to the time of the national registration. The then Minister

Supply-External Affairs
-of National War Services was very fair in his suggestions, but in the province from which I come there were only two hon. members who carried out those suggestions. In the other fourteen ridings the appointments of both registrars and deputy registrars were made on a partisan basis. Therefore the minister will have to take this matter in hand and issue definite instructions, if it is to be done on a non-partisan basis. I believe the Canadian Legion have undertaken to do all they can to see that a large vote is got out, and an affirmative vote; I think it behooves the department in charge to do all they can to employ these men, who probably need a little assistance.


Mr. ROEBUCK:: On this matter of partisanship, I am reminded of the old saying that:
The devil was sick, the devil a monk would be;
The devil was well, the devil a monk was he.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are you not feeling very well?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I am feeling fine. I have had experience with my hon. friends across the way on a good many occasions and never in my experience have I known a Conservative government, when they were in power, to do anything except on the most strictly partisan basis.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In my
constituency, at my request, when we were in power, the sheriff was appointed returning officer. He was an old-time Liberal, and a very fine man.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: My hon. friend is an outstanding exception. In connection with the national registration, as far as the city of Toronto was concerned there was a gentleman's agreement that we would divide up the so-called patronage in that way. I did it to the very last letter, to the nth degree, to the crossing of the t's and the dotting of the i's. I appointed the president, I think, or the secretary of the Conservative association as assistant to the registrar, and that gentleman has been kind enough to say that the matter was carried out in a splendid non-partisan way. But unfortunately those conditions did not prevail in some of the constituencies over which hon. gentlemen opposite presided; we had strict partisanship to the full extent of their ability to apply it against us. It is very nice for hon. gentlemen opposite to take these lofty attitudes when they are not in power. I hope if they ever do come to power-


William Earl Rowe: We won't have a plebiscite.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: -they will remember their exalted statements of the present time. It may be a long time, so perhaps we need not consider it.
There is another thing I want to say. It is very fine to talk about patriotism and giving time to the public interest and that sort of thing. The public is doing that, and I hope a considerable amount of it will be done in the riding which I represent. At the same time I feel sure that if we ask the poor people, the very poor people, of most of these constituencies to give their time free of charge, while we are paying everyone else the full value of their services-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Including ourselves.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Including ourselves and including the leader of the opposition-


William Earl Rowe: He is earning his.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: -we shall receive criticism for our pains. I do not see why we should ask poor people to be the only ones to give their services free. When the manufacturers, for instance, refused to accept a five per cent limitation on their profits in the early stages of the war, I am not particularly enthusiastic over asking common people who perhaps need the money to give their day's time free. If they wish to do it, all right, but I am not in favour of pressing them unduly and taking advantage of their patriotism.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Vien in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
J/2. Grant to the International Red Cross committee, $10,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The purpose of calling this item to-night is simply to have the department get into committee of supply. The item may stand.
Item stands.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like if possible to get another item-


Richard Burpee Hanson: You have three now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It relates only to giving the ministers who happen to be here on Thursday or Friday an opportunity to take up their estimates. If my hon. friend would not object to allowing a post office item to be called-
Trade Agreements


[Stage Direction]
Pensions and Other Benefits.
2J9. To provide for the payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties, or to other persons injured while performing duties in any way connected with the postal service, or in protecting his majesty's mails, or to the dependents of such employees or other persons who may be killed while so engaged; payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, $5,000.
Item stands.
Progress reported.	*


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister); I should like to call item No. 9 on the order paper and then take up the two resolutions under government notices of motion with regard to trade with the south American republics. I think the matter has been fully discussed. This particular order was held over because of a special reason which I think does not obtain at the moment. I move:
That it is expedient that the Senate and House of Commons do approve the trade agreement between Canada and Chile signed September 10, 1941, and that this house do approve the same.
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we may return to government notices of motion and call the first two resolutions, one relating to trade with Brazil, the other to trade with the Argentine republic. It will be recalled that we discussed those two resolutions at the same time as the resolution with respect to trade between Canada and Chile. I move:
That it is expedient that the Senate and House of Commons do approve the trade agreement between Canada and Brazil signed October 17, 1941, and that this house do approve the same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That it is expedient that the Senate and House of Commons do approve the trade agreement between Canada and the Argentine republic signed October 2, 1941, and that this house do approve the same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has approved trade agreements entered into with Chile, Brazil and the Argentine Republic, and to ask their concurrence in the said approval.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.54 p.m.
Wednesday, March 4, 1942