QUESTIONS

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

Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	Is separation allowance paid to wives of any enlisted men who besides their military duties carry on a private practice in their civilian profession?
2.	If so, in what professions and how many in each?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	(a) There is no record of any enlisted men on active service who, besides their military duties, carry on a private practice in their civilian professions.
(b) In so far as officers are concerned, there are no records to show that any officers on active service practise a private profession in addition to their military duties. Certain medical officers who are members of the reserve army are called up from time to time for periodic employment with standing medical boards and the wives of such officers are entitled to receive dependents' allowance for the number of days in eaclh month in which t'heir husbands perform military duties. These officers are not members of the active forces and are, in fact, civilian practitioners. It is reasonable, therefore, to expect that they
would continue to maintain their private practices during those 'hours when not actually employed on military duties.
2.	See answer to question No. 1.


POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION-RECOMMENDATIONS OF LEAGUE OF NATIONS ECONOMIC SECTION
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	Has the economic committee of the cabinet set up for the purpose of formulating plans for the post-war reconstruction period invited suggestions from the economic section of the League of Nations?
2.	If so, what is the nature of such recommendations received thus far from this body?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	The committee on reconstruction, through its chairman, Dr. F. Cyril James, has had contact with Mr. Loveday, economic section of the League of Nations.
2.	No recommendations have been received as yet.
GASPE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS*


Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the government taken any steps or made representations, since 1940, to any privati company or public body to engage in prospect ing the petroleum deposits of Gaspe?
2.	If so, with what results?


Mr. HOWE:: The answer is no.


YOUTH TRAINING PROGRAMME
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	How many vocational schools and special training centres have been organized to date in each of the nine provinces under the war emergency programme (youth training programme) ?
2.	How many applications for training were received from each of the nine provinces between July 1, 1941, and January 31, 1942?
3.	How many such applicants were accepted for training?
4.	How many applicants were rejected, (a) by reason of failure to meet physical requirements, (b) by reason of lack of training facilities?
5.	How many trainees, in each of the nine provinces, completed their training during the period July 1, 1941, and January 31, 1942?
6.	Out of those graduating, how many, by provinces, (a) secured work dm war industres;
(b)	enlisted in the army, navy, air force;
(c)	were drafted for home defence under the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act; (d) secured employment in peacetime industry; (e) are at present unemployed?
7.	Have any advanced training schools been established in Canada to give advanced or specialized trailing to graduates under the war emergency programme? If so, how many, and where ?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Training under the war emergency training programme was carried on during January,
Questions

1942, at the following number of centres: Nova Scotia, 5; New Brunswick, 10; Quebec, 22; Ontario, 33; Manitoba, 6; Saskatchewan, 8; Alberta, 11; British Columbia, 17-Total, 112.
2.	The selection of trainees is made locally and information as to the number of applications received is not a matter of record with the Department of Labour at Ottawa.
3.	During the period July 1, 1941, to January 31, 1942, the following numbers of trainees were admitted to war emergency training classes in the various provinces. These figures do not include the numbers which were in training on July 1, 1941.
Nova Scotia-Industrial pre-employment classes, 379; R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes, 34; Navy and Army classes (enlisted men), 471
-Total 884.
New Brunswick
Industrial pre-employment classes..	272
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	451
Navy and Army classes (enlisted
men)	 734
Total	 1,457
Quebec
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 3,537
Part-time classes for employed
persons	 Ill
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	739
Navy and Army classes (enlisted
men)	 1,194
Total	 5,581
Ontario
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 10,908
Part-time classes for employed
persons	 1,343
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	2,615
Navy and Army classes (enlisted
men)	 3,852
Total	 18,718
Manitoba
Industrial pre-employment classes..	341
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	590
Navy and Army classes (enlisted
men)	 1,074
Total	j...	2,005
Saskatchewan
Industrial pre-employment classes..	609
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	1,427
Navy and Army classes (enlisted
men)	 543
Total	 2,579

Alberta
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 918
Part-time classes for employed
persons	 49
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	1,218
Navy	and	Army	classes	(enlisted
men)	 1,098
Total	,	 3,283
British Columbia Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 1,057
Part-time classes for employed
persons	 567
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	1,288
Navy	and	Army	classes	(ehlisted
men)	 1,576
Total	 4,488
Dominion totals Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 18,021
Part-time classes for employed
persons	 2,070
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	8,362
Navy	and	Army	classes	(enlisted
men)	 10,542
Total	 38,995
4.	For the reason explained in 2 above the number of applicants rejected is not a matter of record at Ottawa. It is known however that no trainees have been rejected by reason of lack of training facilities.
5.	The numbers which completed training from July 1, 1941, to January 31, 1942, are as
follows:
Novia Scotia
Industrial pre-employment classes.. 363
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	2
Navy	and	Army	classes	(enlisted
men)	 322
Total	 687
New Brunswick
Industrial pre-employment classes.. 232
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	294
Navy	and	Army	classes	(enlisted
men)	  394
Total	 920
Quebec
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 2,484
Part-time	classes for	employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	278
Navy	and	Army	classes	(enlisted
men)	 729
Total	  3,491

Questions
Ontario
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 8,688
Part-time classes for employed
persons	 374
R.CA.F. pre-enlistment classes		1,590
Navy and Army classes (enlisted
men)	 2,663
Total	 13,315
Manitoba
Industrial pre-employment classes..	279
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	316
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	 781
Total	 1,376
Saskatchewan
Industrial pre-employment classes.. 420
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	975
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	 213
Total	 1,608
Alberta
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 692
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	747
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men	 616
Total	 2,055
British Colombia Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 818
Part-time classes for employed
persons	 211
R.CA.F. pre-enlistment classes		767
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men	 1,069
Total	 2,865
Dominion totals Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 13,976
Part-time classes for employed
persons	 585
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	4,969
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	 6,787
Total	;	 26,317
6. (a).
Nova Scotia
Industrial pre-employment classes...	358
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes	
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	
Total	 358
New Brunswick
Industrial pre-employment classes...	228
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes	
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	
Total	 228
Quebec
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 1,863
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.CA.F. pre-enlistment classes	
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	
Total	 1,863
Ontario
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 8,824
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.CA.F. pre-enlistment classes		17
Navy	and	Army	classes	(enlisted
men)	
Total	 8,841
Manitoba
Industrial pre-employment classes... 264
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	1
Navy	and	Army	classes	(enlisted
men)	
Total	 265
Saskatchewan
Industrial pre-employment classes... 322
R.CA.F. pre-enlistment classes		14
Navy	and	Army	classes	(enlisted
men)	
Total	 336
Alberta
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 573
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	16
Navy	and	Army	classes	(enlisted
men)	
Total	 589
British Columbia Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 918
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	1
Navy	and	Army	classes	(enlisted
men)	
Total	 919

Questions

Dominion totals Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 13,350
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes...	49
Navy	and	Army	classes	(enlisted
men)	
Total	 13,399
6. (b)
Nova Scotia
Industrial pre-employment classes..	5
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes...	2
Navy	and	Army	classes	(enlisted
men)	
Total	 7
New Brunswick
Industrial pre-employment classes.. 2
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes...	286
Navy	and	Army	classes	(enlisted
men)	
Total	 288
Quebec
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 17
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes...	231
Navy and Army classes (enlisted
men)	
Total	 248
Ontario
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 163
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes...	1,538
Navy and Army classes (enlisted
men)	
Total	 1,701
Manitoba
Industrial pre-employment classes..	4
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes...	319
Navy and Army classes (enlisted
men)	
Total	 323
Saskatchewan
Industrial pre-employment classes..	15
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes...	961
Navy and Army classes (enlisted
men)	
Alberta
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 64
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	704
Navy and Army classes (enlisted
men)	
Total	 768
British Columbia Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 15
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	759
Navy and Army classes (enlisted
men)	
Total	 774
Dominion totals Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 285
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	4,800
Navy and Army classes (enlisted
men)	
Total	  5,085
6. (c) All enlistments reported by the provinces are shown in 6 (b). Men within the compulsory military training age group are not admitted to the industrial classes unless they have been rejected by the military authorities or are otherwise ineligible for compulsory military service.
6. (d) The industrial training given under the war emergency training programme is only for industries engaged on war production work except in the case of rehabilitation training of discharged soldiers. The latter training has only recently been commenced and no reports as to placements have as yet been received.
6. (e) The following number of trainees were reported as having completed their training between July 1, 1941 and January 31, 1942, there being no record of their having been placed in employment. A follow-up of trainees reported as unplaced is carried on by placement officers and it is known that the majority of them have either secured employment or will be placed after a short interval.
Nova Scotia	*
Industrial pre-employment classes..	..
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	..
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	
Total...

Total

Questions
New Brunswick
Industrial	pre-employment	classes..	2R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment	classes	8Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	Total	
10
Quebec
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 604
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes		47
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	
Total	 651
Ontario
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 259
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes		35
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	    ..
Total	 294
Manitoba
Industrial pre-employment classes..	35
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes		7
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	
Total	 42
Saskatchewan
Industrial pre-employment classes..	83
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes		..
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	
Total	 83
Alberta
Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 55
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes		18
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	
Total	 73
British Columbia Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 66
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes		7
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	
Total	 73
Dominion totals Industrial
Pre-employment classes	 1,104
Part-time classes for employed
persons	
R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes....	122
Navy and Army classes (enlisted men)	
Total	 1,226
The number placed includes some trainees who graduated prior to July 1, 1941 but who were placed in employment after July 1, 1941.
7. Under the war emergency training programme special classes for tool room improvers are carried on at the Westdale Technical School, Hamilton, Ontario, the Montreal Technical School and Quebec Technical School. A special class for instrument makers has also been carried on at Halifax.
Note.-At January 31, 1942 there were still 15,120 in the classes, this total being made up of:-industrial pre-employment classes 5,052; industrial part-time classes for employed persons 1,484; R.C.A.F. pre-enlistment classes 4,705; navy and army classes 3.879.


BACON AGREEMENTS
Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	What was the amount of money collected
by the bacon board as deductions from payments realized by the board for pork products shipped to Great Britain during the period of the first bacon agreement between the government of Canada and British authorities?
2.	In whose custody were these funds held?
3.	What disposition of this sum, if any, has been made?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	$2,258,760.63.
2.	Receiver General.
3.	U.S. freight and exchange, $29,559.36; storage charges. $640,065.58; British Ministry of Food 5 shilling rebate on 22,400,000 lb. (estimated), $221,500; British Ministry of Food deductions for shrink loss, salt bags and adjustment account, $24,886.30; storage charges on cured product, $18,592.60; miscellaneous charges, $4,334.43; difference in the amount received from the British Ministry of Food for bacon purchased by the board during the period October 14 to November 16, 1940 for shipment on and after November 1, 1940, under the new contract and the amount paid for such bacon by the board pending completion of the new agreement, $923,663.14; balance with Receiver General, $395,939.22- Total, $2,258,760.63.
44561-54 1
Questions


INCOME TAX-ALBERTA
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What was the number of farmers in Alberta who paid dominion income tax in each of the years 1936 to 1940, inclusive?
2.	What was the total amount of dominion income tax paid by Alberta farmers for each of the years 1936 to 1940, inclusive?
3.	What was the total amount of dominion income tax paid by all residents of Alberta for each of the years 1936 to 1940, inclusive?
4.	What was the total number of those residents of Alberta who paid income tax for each of the years 1936 to 1940, inclusive?


Mr. GIBSON:: Number
1.	1936	  220
1937		 344
1938		 285
1939		 474
1940		 644
Amount
2.	1936	
$17,417	651937	
30,161	951938	
22,236	861939	
50,698	571940	
61,648	84
Amount
3.	1936	
$1,599,510	901937	
1,850,704	941938	
1,922,627	971939	
2,273,272	281940	
2,930,837	89
Number
4.	1936	 10,532
1937		 11,732
1938		 12,201
1939		 13,426
1940		 14,522


Mr. STOKES:: 1.	What amount of cheddar cheese was manufactured in each province of Canada in 1941?
2.	What amount of money was paid by way of bonus to encourage improvement in the quality of cheese during 1941 by provinces?
3.	What amount of money was paid by way of assistance to improve cheese factories in 1941 by provinces?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Amount of cheddar cheese manufactured in each province in Canada in 1941:
Province	Lbs.
Prince Edward Island	 691,246
Nova Scotia	 -
New Brunswick	 763,037
Quebec	 36,769,053
Ontario	 102,764,534
Manitoba	 3,672,287
Saskatchewan	 390,981
Alberta	 3,140,978
British Columbia	 721,217
Total	 148,913,283
[ Mr. Gardiner. ]
2.	Amount of money paid by way of bonus to encourage improvement in the quality of cheese during 1941, by provinces:
Prince Edward Island $
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick .. ..
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia .. ..
Amount due factories not Paid yet paid
107 95 $ 1,236 82
1,820 68	488	71290,127 37 10,440 03 1,084,261 27 53,394 93 8,334 35	1,058	05921 09	166	435,222 57	2,270	594,173 26	1,430	36Total	$1,394,968 54 $70,485 92Grand Total .. ..	$1,465,454 463.	Amount of money paid by way of assistance to improve cheese factories in 1941, by provinces:April 1,	1941, to	February	25, 1942Prince Edward Island	....	$ 92	00New Brunswick	13150Quebec	
122,409	10Ontario	
41,019	91Manitoba	
-Saskatchewan	
-Alberta	
415	17British Columbia	
-Total	
$164,067 68


Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	What was the total amount of cheddar cheese manufactured in Ontario in 1941?
2.	What amount of money was paid to cheese producers in Ontario by the provincial government by way of bonus during the year 1941?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	102,764,534 pounds.
2.	No information.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the total of the expenditures (a) actually incurred; (b) to which the government has been committed, by each of the government-owned corporations created under the Department of Munitions and Supply Act?
2.	What advances or other payments have been made to each such government-owned corporation ?

Questions as Orders jor Returns


Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What were the names of all employees, including medical and clerical staff, of Lancaster hospital, West Saint John, from the year 1919 to the year 1941?
2.	What were their salaries per year and what were their pensions per year from 1919 to 1941?
3.	Were any of these employees supplied with automobiles by the government? If so, how many and what are their names?
4.	What were the prices of these automobiles?
5.	What year were such automobiles purchased?
6.	What was the cost of operating these oars from the date of purchase to the year 1941?
7.	What year was Lancaster hospital opened as a military hospital?
8.	What was the total cost of the Lancaster hospital since its opening as a military hospital to the year 1941?
9.	What was the cost of all repairs to Lancaster hospital since its opening as a military hospital to the year 1941?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: With reservations already made.


Mr. ROY:: 1.	In view of recent military developments, has the government given any consideration to the fuel oil problem?
2.	If so, what consideration has been given to the possibilities of exploiting the petroleum deposits of Gaspe?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.


Mr. WHITE:: 1.	What is the strength of the reserve army as of 1st February, 1942?
2.	How many men were called for 30 days' training?
3.	How many men called for 30 days' training enlisted im the -active force?
4.	What further training have the men called for 30 days' training received to date?
5.	How many men were called for four months' training or for service for the duration of the war?
6.	How many men called for four months' training or for the duration enlisted in the active force?
7.	What is the strength of the reserve force units that train -at local headquarters, -and what is the date of the return of strength of these reserve force units?
8.	Are the men who received 30 days' training and then attached on paper to reserve force units included in this total?
9.	How many days will reserve force units train in 1942?


Mr. SHAW:: 1.	How m-any district representatives, temporary employees or others have been engaged by the Department of National Defence or any other department of government, since September 1, 1939, in connection with the administration of the Dependents' Allowance Act as far as it ha-s been made to apply -to the Red Deer federal constituency?
2.	What are the names a-nd addresses of all such persons?
3.	When was each appointed?
4.	What rate of salary and/or -allowances are paid to each?
5.	Wlnat amounts have been paid to each such person to date?


DOMINION LOANS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: I wish to direct a question -to the Minister of Finance. Is it true that the Canadian government is -contemplating -the negotiation -of a loan of something in the neiglhfoouThood of five 'hundred million dollars from some sucih agency as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in the United States? If so, would the minister care to give the house some information -about the proposed- terms of the loan, and -would he also give the house the reasons for incurring such a debt at the present time?
Hon. J. -L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance): I never heard of such a proposal.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Last night I received a letter franked by the Clerk of the House. Inclosed in it was -a tetter addressed to "Members of Parliament." This letter had -been opened, and apparently it was decided to send it to me by reason of the -fact that the writer lives in -my constituency. I wish to ask a question based npon this letter, and as it is very short I will read it and then -address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. The letter reads:
Members of Parliament,
Ottawa.
Dear Sirs-
Why isn't the wheat insurance money paid? There are some people Who h-ave received cheques but there are many who have not, and wha-t d-o you think we are living on in the meantime? It should be paid. You don't seem
Prairie Farm Assistance

to realize what trouble and havoc is being caused, but I oould tell you. I wish we of the western prairies could tell you face to face.
Yours truly,
Mrs. Donald Sutherland
In view of the fact that many western members have received similar letters, what is holding up the payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act? Secondly, will it 'be 'possible after March 1 to include the second payment with the first where the first payment has not already been made?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: I am not in a -position to state with regard to any individual case what is holding it up, without making inquiry at the Edmonton office so far as Alberta is concerned and the Regina office so far as Saskatchewan is concerned. But I would say that a very considerable part of the payment has been made, and there is some reason for delay wherever there has been delay. Some 37,500,000 of the amount payable in Saskatchewan had passed through the prairie farm assistance office in Regina on January 8, when I was there, and a considerable part of those payments had gone out before that time.


Victor Quelch: How much has been paid in Alberta?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to say offhand, but a return was brought down the other day in answer to a question, which indicates fairly closely what the amount would be. As far as the last part of the question is concerned, I was informed more than a week ago that all payments now -being made are for the full amounts. That has been done for the past week or so; and all -payments now going out are not for the sixty -per cent that was earned u-p to December -but for the whole one hundred per cent.


Victor Quelch: Do the payments include the bonus of 75 cents an acre?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, wherever there was prairie farm assistance paid; but where there is no prairie farm assistance that goes out separately.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Laboui 'based upon some information received from the International Woodworkers of America, British Columbia section. My information is to the effect that since last

September they have been endeavouring to get certain of the logging companies, engaged largely, I believe, in producing aeroplane spruce, to enter into a collective bargaining agreement. Last January they called in the western representative of the Department of Labour, Mr. Harrison. Did Mr. Harrison make a report to the department on this dispute, and is the department still endeavouring to bring about a collective bargaining agreement in this industry?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I believe my hon. friend is referring to Mr. Pritchett's organization.


Angus MacInnis: They did not tell me who owned it, -but it is the International Woodworkers of America, British Columbia section.


Humphrey Mitchell: A report has been received from Mr. Harrison in connection with the dispute. The question of wages has been referred to the regional war labour board in British Columbia. It will be necessary for the question of union recognition to be referred to a board under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. The hon. me-mber may rest assured that the federal Department of Labour will give all possible cooperation in the amicable settlement of the dispute.


BRUCE COAL COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): As a private Liberal member of this honourable house may I ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply if there have been any new developments with regard to the matter of the Bruce Goal Company, which sold the same coal three times, not on government contracts but on contracts that were not signed. My second question is whether the secretary of that company is at present in the employ of the government, in the Department of Munitions and Supply.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the matter of
the Bruce Coal Company was referred by my department to the Department of Justice, and I understand that appropriate action is being taken or has been taken. With regard to the employment of the secretary of the company in my department, I have no knowledge; but if the hon. member will give me his name I will make inquiries.


Mr. POULIOT:: His name is A. E.
Bradfield.

Plebiscite Act-Point of Order



PLEBISCITE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. McLarty for the second reading of Bill No. 10, respecting the taking of a plebiscite in every electoral district in Canada and the taking of the votes of such plebiscite of Canadian service voters stationed within and without Canada, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Last evening an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) to which exception was taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Does any hon. member wish to speak to the point of order raised?


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Last evening, just before six
o'clock, and after the hon. member for Lake Centre had moved his amendment, the Prime Minister raised a point of order, submitting that the amendment was out of order. He further added, at page 839 of Hansard:
... I raise the point now in order that your honour may have an opportunity to consider the matter.
Then he briefly stated the point of order:
The amendment tends to amend the bill, which I do not think is right, and the amendment does not object to the principle of the bill.
In that connection, as I recall it, the right hon. gentleman cited one of the rules of this house, though that is not incorporated in the objection which he made. If I apprehend his position aright, however, it was standing order 75 to which he alluded. Is that correct?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 'Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Standing order 75 appears at page 216, of Beauchesne and reads:
Every public bill shall be read twice in the house before committal or amendment.
I have a legal argument to make; it may take me some little time, and I crave the indulgence of the house while I do so. I should like to say that I have not had the opportunity to prepare a thorough brief on the matter, but what I have I should like to give to the house without interruption, if I may.
I have just read standing order 75, and I ask hon. members to note the date: 1867. Now
I propose to read the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre, appearing at page S38 of Hansard
That the bill be not now read a second time but that this house is of the opinion that the use of the powers conferred thereby be restricted to the submission thereunder of one plebiscite only.
Even at first blush, on reading standing order 75, I submit there is nothing in 'this amendment which is contrary to the provisions of that order, unless something is read into it. But we have been able to find at least four cases since 1867 where what is now proposed has been done in parliament. I want to cite a number of authorities. The first to which I direct Your Honour's attention is a ruling given by the Speaker of the British House of Commons on the Anglo-German agreement bill, in wihiclh it was laid down in Hansard debates, 1890, third series, 347, at page 743:
It is competent for any hon. member to move a resolution superseding the motion for the second reading, but it is not competent to add words to the motion "that the bill be now read a second time."
That is a statement of principle, and that is what is sought to be done here. The amendment offered by the hon. member for Lake Centre does not propose to add to the motion that the bill be now read a second time. It proposes to supersede that motion entirely. I therefore submit that under the rule which I have quoted it is competent for him to move such a motion.
The amendment in question proposes that the bill be not now read a second time, and then proceeds to assert a principle. The important word in the first part of the amendment is the word "now", where it is stated that it be not now read a second time. That does not mean "never". The amendment does not mean that the bill will never be read a second time. If the proposed amendment is passed in the affirmative the Secretary of State would be entirely within his rights to move again without notice the main motion, that the bill be now read a second time. That is clear from the statement appearing in May, thirteenth edition, page 392, as follows:
It must be borne in mind, however, that the resolution, if agreed to-
And in this instance I would use the word "amendment",-
-does not arrest the progress of the bill, the second reading of which may be moved on another occasion. The effect of such an amendment is merely 'to supersede the question for now reading the bill a second time; and the

Plebiscite Act-Point of Order
bill is left in the same position as if the question for now reading the bill a second time had been simply negatived or superseded by the previous question.
The result is that if the amendment is carried1 in the affirmative the bill may, at a later stage, be read the second time; but in the meantime the house will have asserted an important principle in connection with the operation of the bill, namely,-
-that 'this house is of the opinion that the use of the powers conferred thereby be restricted to the submission thereunder of one plebiscite only.
These are the words of the amendment. I could quote to Your Honour a large number of precedents, both in the British House of Commons and in this house, showing that it is possible for an amendment to be made on the second reading of a bill, provided that such amendment does not seek to add words to the motion that the bill be now read a second time, but on the contrary proposes to supersede it.
At pages 390 and 391 of May, thirteenth edition, this is made quite clear.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, but I had asked not to be interrupted. However, go ahead.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Do I understand the hon. member to suggest that this proposed amendi-ment is not an amendment to dispense with the second reading of the bill, but merely to delay this house in dealing with it until a future occasion?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The question is not germane to the point at issue, and I do not propose to answer it. I am dealing with a very technical question of parliamentary law and practice, and notwithstanding the erudition of which I know the bon. member is possessed, I would ask him to possess his soul in patience. I do not mean anything offensive in that, but I must point out that in my opinion the interruption was not pertinent.
When the hon. member spoke I was proceeding to refer Your Honour to pages 390 and 391 of May, thirteenth edition; and with your permission I shall read this citation, one which I believe makes my submission quite clear;
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move, as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill; or expressing opinions

as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence, or, in the Lords, the opinions of the judges.
On page 391 it is stated that an amendment must not "attach conditions to the second reading of the bill". This merely means that an amendment must not seek to add words to the motion "that the bill now be read a second time", but that if it supersedes the motion entirely and asserts a principle, it is entirely in order.


Georges Parent: Order. May I point out to the house that I have to listen to the hon. member, because I have to reply to 'him. But because of the noise I cannot hear him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
obliged to Your Honour, although I am not sure that I like the way you have put itr- that you have to listen to me. I suggest it may be a pleasure to listen to me.
I have in my hand a number of precedents where such amendments have been moved both in the British House of Commons and in the Canadian House of Commons. Then, in addition to those I have before me, reference may be made to an amendment moved to the second reading of a bill respecting, the northwest territories. I refer Your Honour to the Journals of the House of Commons for 1890, pages 86 and 102. I shall submit those references without reading the full subject matter. However those are complete cases, similar to this one. And, mind you, they arose after the passage of standing order 75.
The second case is an amendment to the second reading of a bill to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, and that reference is found in the Journals of the House of Commons for 1882, pages 410 and 412. These references are entirely applicable here. I refer them to Your Honour without reading them.


Georges Parent: I should be obliged if the hon. member would read them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very well. The citation from the Journals of 1882 is as follows:
The question being again proposed that the bill be now read a second time-
That was the main motion 'before the house- -Mr. Mills moved, in amendment, seconded by Mr. Rymal, that all the words after "that" to the end of the question be left out, and the words, "in readjusting the representation of the people in parliament, there should be no needless interference with existing arrangements. and the principle of justice and fair

Plebiscite Act-Point of Order
play toward both political parties should be observed; that the bill contains numerous needless changes, and is framed with a view to concentrate large bodies of the Liberal voters i:n a few electoral districts, and to add Conservative voters to, or remove Liberal voters from, many electoral districts, and thus to weaken the effective strength of the Liberal party, and to pack the constituencies of Ontario in favour of the Conservatives" inserted instead thereof.
That amendment, I must say, has a familiar ring to it.' That question was in order, was put, and was defeated.
Then, if Your Honour will refer to the Journals of the British House of Commons, volume 146, for the years 1890 and 1891, you will find this, at page 303:
The order of the day being read for the second reading of the Newfoundland Fisheries bill;
And a motion being made, and the question being proposed, that the bill be now read a second time; And a debate arising thereupon;
An amendment was proposed to be made to the question by leaving out from the word "that", to the end of the question, in order to add the words "this house, having been informed that a satisfactory act has now passed the legislature of Newfoundland, and declaring its readiness to support the government in baking all measures necessary for carrying out the treaty obligations of this country, and the arrangements for arbitration made with the government of France in this matter, does not now proceed to the second reading of the bill," instead thereof. And the question being put, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:-It passed in the negative.
And the question being put, that the words "this house, having been informed that a satisfactory act has now passed the legislature of Newfoundland, and declaring its readiness to support the government in taking all measures necessary for carrying out the treaty obligations of this country, and the arrangements for arbitration made with the government of France in this matter, does not now proceed to the second reading of the bill" be added to the word "That" in the original question: It was resolved in the affirmative.
And the main question, so amended, being put;
Resolved, that this house, having been informed that a satisfactory act has now passed the legislature of Newfoundland, and declaring its readiness to support the government in taking all measures necessary for carrying out the treaty obligations of this country, and the arrangements for arbitration made with the government of France in this matter, does not now proceed to the second reading of the bill.
That, surely, is some authority. Then I quote from the Journals of the British House of Commons of 1859:
The order of the day being read, for the second reading of the Representation of the People Bill;
And a motion being made, and the question being proposed, that the bill be now read a second time;
An amendment was proposed to be made to the question, by leaving out from the word
"That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words "this house is of opinion, that it is neither just nor politic to interfere, in the manner proposed in this bill, with the freehold franchise as hitherto exercised in the counties in England and Wales; and that no readjustment of the franchise will satisfy this house or the country, which does not provide for a greater extension of the suffrage in cities and boroughs than is contemplated in the present measure," instead thereof.
I would refer Your Honour to two specific precedents in Canada. I refer first to the Journals of the House of Commons, volume 19, 1885, pages 30S and 309, April 16 and 17, 1885;
The order of the day being read for the second reading of the bill respecting the electoral franchise:
And the question being proposed, that the bill be now read a second time;
Sir Richard J. Cartwright moved in amendment, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, that all the words after "That", to the end of the question, be left out, and the words "in the opinion of this house, it is not possible at this late stage of the session, and having regard to the present condition of the public business, to discuss the said bill satisfactorily," inserted instead thereaf;
And a debate arising thereupon;
And the house having continued to sit till after twelve of the clock on Friday morning;
And the question being put on the amendment; the house divided: and the names being called for they were taken down, as follows.
So it passed in the negative.
It was quite in order to do that, and in principle this is the same as that.
I refer Your Honour to the Journals of this house, volume 19, 1885, pages 93 and 94, February 19, 1885:
The order of the day being read, for the second reading of the bill to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court;
Mr. Landry (Montmagny) moved, seconded by Mr. McMillan (Vaudreuil), and the question being proposed, that the bill be now read a second time;
Mr. Ouimet moved in amendment, seconded by Mr. Dupont, that all the words after "That" to the end of the question, be left out, and the words, "there are in our judicial system too great a number of tribunals having an appeal jurisdiction; that a.n humble address be presented to His Excellency, the Governor General in Council, praying him to communicate with the several provincial governments, with the object of arranging a judicial system which will diminish the number of appeal jurisdction6, whilst guaranteeing an efficient administration of justice equally satisfactory to all the provinces", inserted instead thereof.
And the question being put on the amendment; the house divided:

and it passed in the negative.
There are at least four Canadian precedents for the course which we are seeking t-o pursue under the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I suggest that the

Plebiscite Act-Point of Order
amendment does not -come within the ambit of tihe principle enunicated by the Prime Minister, and therefore it is in order. I do not wish to labour the point. In my mind at least, and I hope in the minds of legal gentlemen of the house, the point is clear. I could hardly expect that laymen would be quite so appreciative of the technicalities of the situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am not one of that enlightened company, the members of the legal profession, to which my hon. friend has alluded, and to Which he belongs, but I am a humble member of this house and like him I have perused the Journals of the House of Commons. I notice that my hon. friend has given us several citations from the Journals which run back a good many years, some of them fifty or more. Perhaps as a member of the legal profession as well as a member of this house he will be inclined to place more importance upon the more recent rulings given by former Speakers. Therefore, I would direct Your Honour's attention to rulings which have been made by fhe Speaker of the House of Commons in regard to similar motions and which support entirely the point of order which I raised at the time the hon. member introduced his amendment.
I would refer the house and Your Honour to the Journals of the House of Commons of Thursday, March 8, 1934, at page 156 as follows:
The order being read for the second reading of Bill No. 19, an act to incorporate the Bank of Canada;
Air. Rhodes moved,

That the said bill be now read the second time.
And a debate arising thereon;
Air. Coote, seconded by Air. Irvine, moved in amendment thereto: That all the words after "That" in the main motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house the government should give further consideration to the matter of providing that the stock of the proposed central bank should be owned by the government, and that the governor and directors of said bank should be appointed by the governor in council."
And a debate arising thereon;
Air. Rhodes raised a point of order that the proposed amendment of the honourable member was out of order for the reason that it anticipated amendments embodying the principle which may be submitted in committee on the bill.
After debate thereon;
Air. Speaker declared the said proposed amendment out of order for the reason that it deals with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved in that it provides that stock in the bank should be owned by the government, whereas the bill by section 16 provides that the [Mr. R. B. Hanson.}
stock shall be allotted to the public with certain restrictions in regard to chartered banks and foreigners. The amendment proposes that the governor and directors should be appointed by the governor in council, whereas the bill by sections 8 and 9 provides that the directors be appointed by the shareholders. This is an amendment which may be moved in committee and not such an amendment as can be moved on a motion to read the bill a second time. Further, the amendment attaches conditions to the second reading of the bill in that it calls for further consideration of the matter set forth in the amendment before the bill is given second reading.
The debate on the second reading of said bill was then resumed.
That is precisely the position we are in at the moment with respect to the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre. I have taken exception to it on the score that while it is an amendment which may be moved in committee, it is not such an amendment as may be moved on a motion to read the bill a second time. Further, the amendment attaches conditions to the second reading of the bill in that it calls for further consideration of the matter set forth in the amendment before the bill is given second reading. That is one ruling of a former Speaker of this house.
There is another ruling which perhaps I have even stronger reasons for recalling in that apparently while in opposition I had managed to get into the same box as my hon. friend and had moved an amendment which related to clauses in a bill which should instead have been considered when the bill was in committee. I had not taken exception to the principle of the bill and His Honour the Speaker ruled my amendment out of order in the following terms-


Richard Burpee Hanson: When
was that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was on
April 24, 1934. The record will be found at page 271 of the Journals of the House, and if it is necessary to emphasize the authority, particularly to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I would say that the ruling on that occasion was given by his friend and my friend the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) when he was occupying the chair of the speakership of this house. I quote from page 271:
The order being read for resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Air. Weir (Atelfort), for the second reading of Bill No. 51, An Act to improve the methods and practices of marketing of national products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith, and the proposed motion of Air. Alackenzie King in amendment thereto;
And a point of order having been raised;

Plebiscite Act-Point of Order
Then comes the quotation of Mr. Speaker's ruling:
Mr. Speaker: "It having been moved that Bill 51, An Act to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade and to make further provision in connection therewith, be now read a second time, the Right Horn Mr. Mackenzie King moved in amendment: 'That all the words after the first word "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
this house, while prepared to support legislation for assisting the orderly marketing of natural products, is unalterably opposed to the enactment of any compulsory measure which delegates to unnamed and undetermined individuals, groups or organizations, sweeping powers over the production and trade and commerce of the nation, and which confers upon a minister of the crown, and upon the governor in council unprecedented authority and unusual powers to restrict production, and interprovincial, inter-imperial and foreign trade as regards both exports and imports, as well as other autocratic powers.'
"Hon. Mr. Stevens raised the point of order as to whether the said amendment is in order inasmuch as it constitutes what might be termed a declaration of policy instead of offering reasons why consideration of the bill should not be proceeded with or should be postponed or proposing something else germane to the actual motion before the house.
"The Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King in moving the amendment quoted paragraph 755 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which paragraph is published as a quotation from May, 13th Edition at page 390, which is repeated by Bourinot at page 509:
" 'It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.'
"This rule is subject to certain limitations.
His Honour the Speaker continues:
If the right hon. member had continued to quote from May, he would have found the following reference to an amendment to a motion for second reading of a bill-'Nor may such an amendment deal with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee.'
That is from May, thirteenth edition, page 91, and the precedent as cited in May in .support of this from 188 Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, column 76, "The Education (Scotland) Bill" reads:
"'Mr. Speaker:	I have to rule that the
amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Glasgow and Aberdeen universities -to the effect that the house while welcoming educational legislation for Scotland regrets that the present measure does not propose change in the educational areas, which is urgently required in the interests of efficient administration-is not technically in order, because it does not
challenge the principle of the bill. The question raised can be decided by an amendment to the bill itself. If the hon. member wants to object to the second reading, he should move that the bill be read this day six months.'
Then His Honour the Speaker continued with his ruling:
"The amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition does not challenge the principle of Bill 51, and it anticipates the committee stage. It declares that the 'house is prepared to support legislation for assisting the orderly marketing of natural products' and the bill is intituled:	'An Act to improve the
methods and practices of marketing of natural products.' There is so much similarity between those two propositions that one cannot be moved as a reason to reject the second reading of a bill enunciating the other. The bill deals with powers and methods which may be altered in committee.
"The objection to the enactment of any compulsory measure which delegates to unnamed and undetermined individuals, groups or organizations, sweeping powers over the production and trade and commerce of the nation can be decided by amendments when the committee of the whole is considering section 3 of the bill which establishes the Dominion marketing board and section 4 which defines the powers of the board. The action to be taken by the governor in council and the minister in administering the act is described in almost every section of the bill and may be strengthened or weakened by amendment when the bill is in committee.
"The objections raised in the proposed amendment cannot be looked upon as reasons why bill 51 should not now be proceeded with and, moreover, they may be considered after the bill has been read a second time.
"For these reasons, I find the proposed amendment to be out of order."
I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree and that hon. members will also agree that the parallel is perfect with respect to the relevancy of the amendment which I had sought to introduce in 1934, and which was ruled out of order, and the amendment which the hon. member for Lake Centre has introduced, and which I believe will also be ruled out of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was
going to ask if the right hon. gentleman agreed with the ruling at that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was not a matter of choice; it was a case of having to, and having to, I have remembered1 it from that day to this. I wish to draw attention in particular to these words in the Speaker's ruling:
The amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition does not challenge the principle of Bill 51, and it anticipates the committee stage.
Those were the two points I raised in speaking last night just before the house adjourned as the ones which I felt Your
852	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Speaker's Ruling
Honour would wish to consider in deciding whether the present amendment was in order or not.
May I say to my hon. friend the mover of the amendment, so that if His Honour the Speaker should rule against him he will not feel too much overcome, that the purpose which he has in mind will be admirably served by the course which I have already suggested to the leader of the opposition and which I am prepared to state now on behalf of the government, namely, that while the bill as it stands is in the nature of a general plebiscite bill, it may be an instruction to the committee to which the bill is to be referred to insert a clause which will confine the bill to the one single question which I formulated and stated in speaking on the address, andi which will be the question to be submitted to the electorate at such time as it may be presented to the people.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very frank on that point and much more explicit I think than he has been at any other time. May I be permitted to suggest to him, having regard to the declaration he has just made and the declarations he made on the twenty-sixth of January, and again yesterday, as well as the implications in the speech from the throne and in the speech of the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty), that the predication of my remarks on the occasions on which I have spoken on this question was that we should have an enabling bill confined to this one question and that we would not be importing into our constitutional practice a brand new theory for the future. Would the Prime Minister not think it the wiser course, in order to facilitate its passage, to withdraw this bill, redraft it along the lines of the bill of 1898, and reintroduce it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the wisest course to adopt is the one which will get us through the business in the quickest possible time. In order to expedite the passage of the measure and avoid unnecessary discussion in the house the government has agreed in advance that when the bill passes its second reading it -will be referred at once to a special committee, which will have power to deal with this matter of changes in any of the provisions that may be desirable and which wiH>_ I am perfectly sure, incorporate the specific change which my hon. friend wishes to have incorporated.


Georges Parent: In the present debate on the second reading of Bill No. 10, "An Act 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. Diefenbaker moved an: amendment:
That the bill be not read a second time but that this house is of the opinion that the use of the powers conferred thereby be restricted to the submission thereunder of one plebiscite only.
I have listened very carefully to the cases which were cited by the leader of the opposition, but I did not find in any of them, that they related to amendments-I include those instances which were discussed in the British House of Commons and also in our own- which were not dealing with the principle of a bill. I have had occasion to see and to read the cases which were cited by the Prime Minister, and I think they are on all fours and entirely apposite to the position we are in to-day.
In Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, standing order 75, page 217, citation number 753, it is stated:
The second reading of a bill is that stage when it is proper to enter into a discussion and propose a motion relative to the principle of the measure.
It is very necessary to state that it is the principle of the measure which is being discussed on the second reading. That is so clear and so distinct that there can be no misunderstanding of the intention of that citation. Further, citation 755 of standing order 75 states:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
And there is a reference to May, thirteenth edition, page 357, and Bourinot, fourth edition, page 509.
A motion opposing the second reading of a bill must not anticipate amendments which may be moved in committee, and alterations which may be effected by amending the clauses of the bill cannot be moved in the second reading, as decided by the Speaker in the two cases quoted by the Prime Minister. I may point out that in the latter case, that of the 24th April, 1934, a division took place on an appeal from the Speaker's decision, and this house sustained the Speaker in ruling the amendment out of order.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Veniot
The amendment now moved does not challenge the principle of the bill; in fact it agrees with the principle of the bill for the taking of a plebiscite; and I would again read the terms of the amendment:
That the bill be not now read a second time but that this house is of the opinion that the use of the powers conferred thereby be restricted to the submission thereunder of one plebiscite only.
Therefore in the amendment there is an agreement with the principle of the bill, namely, the taking of a plebiscite, but it states that the powers therein conferred should be restricted to the submission thereunder of one plebiscite only. The amendment also anticipates the committee stage of the bill; and the hon. member would serve his purpose by moving amendments to those clauses in committee on the bill.
For these reasons I rule the amendment out of order.


Mr. C. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: As the
-first member on this side of the house to take part in to-day's debate, I wish to extend congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon his statesmanlike and masterful address of yesterday, wherein he expressed without equivocation his views and those of his associates in the cabinet on the subject under debate at the present time. He clarified many points, and expressed his continued desire to maintain throughout the nation peace and harmony-a condition which is just as important to-day as the manufacturing of tanks and guns. What a difference there would be in the situation of Canada if we had had as head of the government a man whose character was synonymous with intolerance, narrowness of views, rapier-like thrusts, and vituperation. I feel certain that long ago this country would have been subjected to a great number of disturbances, perhaps to the point of riot and revolution, if certain ideas which are advocated to-day had been carried out sooner. With all the fervour in my heart I say, let Canada thank the Almighty for having at its head today a man of the steadfastness, the equanimity and the balance of the present Prime Minister of Canada.
Before approaching the subjects with which I desire to deal, I should like to take a minute or two to consider certain statements made yesterday by the brilliant young member -for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), in which he upbraided the cabinet for what he termed its abuse of government by order in council. I wish to refer to historical facts of the last war as contained in a book which I have already
mentioned, "The Crisis of Quebec, 1914-18," by E. H. Armstrong, page 54, in which it is stated:
The Canadian War Book, analogous to the British one, provided not only for the eventual raising of troops, but also for the issuance of orders in council and proclamations dealing with such wartime measures as the censorship of cables and the prohibition of certain exports.
On page 65:
What came to be known in 1918 as'order in council government, comprising such unpopular measures as the wholesale cancellation of draft exemptions by >a mere decree of the governor general in council, was legalized by the wide powers granted under the War Measures Act of 1914. At that time it met with scarcely any opposition.
On page 232, referring to the same subject:
. . . as time went on land dissatisfaction with the Military service Act, the cancellation of exemptions, and the so-called "order in council government" pervaded the dominion and led to riots elsewhere, the Quebec riots took on much less of a distinctively Freneh-Ganadian character and were seen to be parts of a nation-wide	movement of resistance to
conscription.
And on page 236 the author, referring to this same subject of orders in council, says:
There were many members, English as well as Freneh-Canadians, who protested against the government's use of the order in council to enforce its wishes, especially in the administration of military service. There was considerable feeling that legislation by order in council constituted an abuse of the executive power, being no more nor less than government by ordinance issued by the federal cabinet.
The Prime Minister, when he rose to uphold the government's mode of action in the Quebec riots, immediately defended the use of the order in council. He stated that the right to use this form of legislation had been granted very extensively by the War Measures Act of 1914, that in the war emergencies it .was often necessary to act quickly, and that the delay of an appeal to parliament might on occasion be disastrous.
So much for that. I now come to the theme of my discourse.
Since the beginning of this session, I have received, as no doubt many other hon. members have, letters requesting information concerning the definite object of the plebiscite. Some view the measure as containing the germ of conscription; others expect conscription to follow immediately on the conclusion of the plebiscite. So far as I can see, the official opposition seem to entertain the wishful hope that this will take place, in order to bring about what they conceive as the ideal measure of an all-out war effort. Others -and to this group I belong-see in the plebiscite an indication of the desire of the government, in case the nation is confronted with a supreme danger, to be free by the
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Veniot

will of the people to take whatever measures it deems necessary in order to protect the nation and the allied cause, even if we must have recourse to a certain measure of conscription for overseas.
What I cannot conceive is that this government, even if we arrive at the point where the nation is confronted with supreme danger, would endeavour to enforce conscription, any measure >of conscription, in the odious way in which it was carried out in 1917, for instance, when troops from Ontario were sent into the province of Quebec to track down evaders; and the same condition of affairs occurred in New Brunswick. I have already expressed myself as willing to accept a certain measure of compulsion for service overseas, provided that I can be shown the absolute failure of voluntary enlistment. But I wish to remind the house and the government that it is a very dangerous policy to ask a nation or a people to make the supreme sacrifice until this nation or people is convinced of the need for such supreme sacrifice. In my estimation the hour has not yet arrived when such a necessity exists. We have before us the gigantic task of educating our people as to the seriousness of the situation. You, sir, and I, see the danger; but the great majority of the people do not entertain the same view. For reasons which already have been submitted to this house I repeat that this country is far from being ripe for the acceptance of any form of compulsion for overseas service. In this opinion may I say that I have the concurrence of a newspaper which is not in great favour with the opposition party, but which nevertheless expresses practically the same view; I refer to the Winnipeg Free Press. In a recent editorial it stated:
The Free Press is published a long way from the province of Quebec, but it knew that the state of opinion in that province was such that any attempt to impose conscription for overseas service by arbitrary, high-handed courses would result in an explosion that would destroy for the duration of the w~ar, and for long after, national unity in Canada. It therefore opposed this policy of coercion and urged more politic and moderate measures. That the Free Press was right in its estimate of the state of public opinion in Quebec can no longer be denied.
May 1 continue a quotation from this same editorial indicating the trend in favour of imposing conscription on Canada, in spite of the fact that the country is not ripe for such a measure. The editorial continues:
Their hope-
The hope of the Toronto junta which decided some four months ago that they would take charge of the affairs of Canada-
[DOT]-was that by exploiting demands for national government and for conscription, they could

disrupt the dominion government; drive Mr. King from the premiership; make it impossible-for the French ministers to remain in office; make possible the coming into office of a government which would be exclusively Englishspeaking with a parliamentary support similarly exclusive. This may look like a wild statement, but nevertheless it is true. The French were to be put in their place; a government more agreeable to reactionaries in financial and political circles was to come into office; there was to be considerably less "truck and trade with the Yankees". In short the clock was to be put back and a government created with policies that, would meet with the approval of all those folk who agree with the contributor of the current issue of Saturday Night, who tells us that "the essence of French-Canadian outlook" is "an unwillingness to concede the battle of the plains of Abraham". It is startling that such unspeakable idiocy should command some measure of support; but unfortunately it does. A quite prominent member of the Toronto group has given expression to this very view in recent years.
I ask the leader of the opposition what he thinks of such dangerous and provocative utterances coming from some of his supporters in the holy city. Is it not a strange coincidence that the intensification of the clamour for conscription occurred last fall precisely at- the moment when it became known that the bulwark against conscription, that giant Canadian statesman, the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, was about to disappear from the political scene? Is it not a coincidence that it happened when it was definitely realized that his mighty voice defending Canadian liberties and privileges was about to be silenced by the pall of death? His passing was the signal, as everyone knows, of a sudden blitzkrieg of forces aimed at splitting the Liberal party by renewing with accrued vigour the sudden cry for conscription which reached even the ranks of the Liberal party.
Not so very long ago I was castigated for having made what was termed a most dangerous speech, when I characterized conscription as having been transformed into a racial issue. No doubt the ire of the hon. gentleman who so characterized me was aroused by the fact that I placed this child on the doorstep of the Conservative party which directed the affairs of Canada in 1917. Hon. members from New Brunswick, although we have personal regard for the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) as a gentleman, know his habit of viewing certain questions by the light of a small tallow candle instead of by the radiance of God's own sunshine. At the first opportunity he tried to convey to certain sections of this country the idea that I entertained the determination to make conscription a racial issue.
I wish to state that there was no such determination on my part. That determination was

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Veniot
made by the fathers of conscription, who conceived that child in 1917 and fostered it ever since. That determination was made rather by the gentlemen from Toronto to whom the Winnipeg Free Press referred in the editorial I quoted a few minutes ago. I wonder if the leader of the opposition listened carefully yesterday to tlhe quotations made by the Prime Minister from speeches delivered in this house by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, by the leader of the opposition in March, 1939, and by these gentlemen during the last campaign. I wondered also, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, why the hon. gentleman did not denounce the words of his leader of that time as being dangerous, because ibis utterances then dealt with the racial nature of conscription, the dangerous elements which it contained; and the possibility that it would develop strife and division throughout the dominion.
Of course I realize with regret that the 'hon. gentleman's knowledge of French does not permit him to understand all the speeches made by my fellow Canadians from the province of Quebec concerning the question of conscription. I realize also that he may not have had time at his disposal to read the English translations of those speeches which appeared in Hansard; and I realize also that he may not have time in the next two or three years to read certain books which treat very forcefully this same question of conscription, and throw a great deal of light on the nature of the issue.
All the speeches and books I have mentioned contain the same thoughts that have been expressed in this house in recent days, except that they have been couched in different language. My crime has been that of stripping conscription of the hypocrisy with which it has been surrounded for the past twenty-five years; of pulling it out of the odious pussyfooting and beating around the bush to which it has been subjected by, I may say, all political parties since the last war. Let us call things by their true names. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet. Dynamite by any other appellation contains just as much destructive power. Pussyfooting about conscription is just as dangerous as so many tons of TNT under the foundations of national unity in this country. It is potentially fraught with just as great disaster and dissension when it is called by the sweet sounding name of selective service for overseas.
To explain my position on this issue may I be permitted, though it is rather disagreeable to me to do so, to speak of my background. Within the last two weeks I have been pointed out as a French fanatic, though I regret to use that term. Let me say that my father,
one time premier of New Brunswick, and one time postmaster general in this House of Commons, devoted his entire life, as every hon. member of this house knows, to fostering and promoting bonne entente, harmony and union between the two great races of this country. I will admit that between my father and the leader of the opposition there did exist political animosity; but I also know, as the hon. gentleman knows, that there existed between them a certain amount of personal friendship.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Right.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: And there is that same personal friendship between us at the present time. We may hold different political opinions, but as individuals we leave those things aside, no matter what bitter enemies we may be in politics. My father endeavoured to instil into me and the other members of the family that same desire to foster a better feeling between the two races. As a physician and a public man I have endeavoured in every way to follow in my father's footsteps in that regard. The dearest and truest friends I have, in and -out of my profession, are of English-speaking descent, and the great majority of them are Protestants. I can also say that in my active professional practice the great majority of my clients were nonCatholics, and the same thing applies to my large drug business in the town of Bathurst. My three daughters-I am going all the way- were educated and received their university degrees at an English institution in the city of Halifax. Why? Because I desired them to have the broad English view as well as the French view, so that they might be better Canadians. My only son is a third year medical student, not at the French university of Laval, for which I have a great deal of respect, nor at the university of Montreal, but at the English Protestant Dalhousie university, for the same reason.
I ask this house: Is such a background conducive to fanatical expressions in this house with regard to race? I deny that in toto. My sole endeavour has been and will continue to be to enlighten my fellow-Canadians as much as I possibly can as to the factual, historical, political and racial significance of conscription as I have studied the question, and to point out the explosive dangers to the nation of any such measure. I realize that I have not much time at my disposal, though I did not take note of the time I started to speak; but I propose to indicate certain facts concerning conscription which are found in a book which I think it very important that every hon. member of
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Veniot

this house should read, a book to which I referred a few moments ago. This book contains all the historical facts, for which all the references are indicated. It was written by a person who lives outside Canada, a former New Yorker but now a Washingtonian. That may foe disagreeable to some hon. members in this house who formerly preached the slogan, "No truck or trade with the United States." The author of this book is a disinterested outsider who has no axe to grind for the province of Quebec or any other province of this dominion; for eonscriptionists or anti-conscriptionists; a person who spent six months practically without interruption in the library of this House of Commons, as can be verified by consulting our librarians, and in the archives of the government, gathering material for this very valuable work.
The first chapter of this book is concerned with the roots of French-Canadianismit indicates the struggles which took place from the conquest of New France by England up to the beginning of the last war. The second chapter deals with the trials of French-Canadian nationality. The third chapter indicates French-Canadian nationalism at the outbreak of the war. The fourth and fifth chapters, which should interest this house, show the united Canada of 1914 and the revival of national conflict with French Canada on the defensive in 1916. May I be permitted, as time allows, to read a few quotations from this work, the first from page 55:
Britain entered the war on August 4. . . On the same day the governor general telegraphed the king that "Canada stands united from the Pacific to the Atlantic in her determination to uphold the honour and traditions of our empire."
Then, in the next paragraph:
The most striking phenomenon in the first months of the war was the practical unanimity of all shades of Canadian opinion.
And a few lines further down:
But in 1914 Canadians of both races and all religions were bound in a sort of union sacrie * . . throughout the length and breadth of the province of Quebec there were demonstrations of popular acclaim for the cause of Britain and her allies.
And on page 56:
In Quebec, the old capital of Canada, there were enthusiastic pro-war demonstrations in which English, Irish, and French Canadians joined.
And in the next paragraph:
With a unanimity that is all the more striking when the bitter divisions of the later years of the war are considered, the representatives of every shade of French-Canadian political opinion, Liberals, Conservatives and even Nationalists seemed to vie with each other in expressions of enthusiasm for the allied
[Mr. Veniot.l
cause and for Canadian participation. . . . From the very beginning of the European conflict, the official leader of French-Canadian thought-
Sir Wilfrid Laurier-
-ranged himself on the side of an active Canadian participation in the war.
Then, on page 57:
Laurier appealed to his own countrymen in eloquent terms to enlist.
And on page 58:
That the Catholic leaders did not at this time shirk from envisaging a whole-hearted Canadian cooperation in the empire's war effort is proved by Archbishop Bruchesi's supplementary statement-
Then the statement follows. And further:
Laurier . . . admonished the French Canadians among the soldiers to remember that "England has protected our liberties and our faith. Under her flag we have found peace, and now in appreciation of what England has done, you go as French Canadians to do your utmost to keep the Union Jack flying in honour to the breeze."
And at page 59:
Pastoral letters . . . have been at times of great influence in keeping the French Canadians in the path of obedience and loyalty to the mother country.
And further down the page:
The bishops did not hesitate to assert that because England was engaged in the war, it was clear that the fate of all parts of the empire was linked to the success of her arms.
I could go on quoting endlessly to show that in those days the most perfect harmony and unity existed among Canadians of all races, all creeds and all nationalities.
Then, at page 64:
On the Liberal as much as on the Conservative side of the House of Commons it seemed to be the consensus of opinion that the government should be given carte blanche to help win the war.
And at page 67:
There was absolutely no difference of opinion on the righteousness of the cause of the allies or of the necessity of Canada's coming to the help of the mother country in the great emergency. *
I now pass to the next chapter, in order to save time. At page S3 I find this:
It was only natural that there arose at that time a widely supported movement for the formation of a battalion to be exclusively composed of French Canadians.
There was an insistent demand for a French-Canadian unit.
French Canadians were sometimes assigned to units predominantly English-speaking and protestant, where the atmosphere was decidedly uncongenial to them.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Homuth
And further down:
They were further annoyed by the lack of French-Canadian instructors and by the refusal of the authorities to allow more than one French-Canadian company under French-Canadian officers in the first contingent. . . The consequent desire for a unit in which French Canadians would be assured of a sympathetic milieu for the free exercise of their religion and customs was very strong. Meanwhile French-Canadian leaders of both parties had given their support to the scheme for a French-Canadian unit. . . .
The consequent authorization on September 30 for the formation of a battalion to be known as the Royal 22nd French Canadians was hailed with patriotic satisfaction throughout the province of Quebec. Conservative and Liberal editors of rural and city newspapers alike united in cordial approval of the scheme. . . .
With the formation of a French-Canadian battalion and the recruiting campaign, of which the Parc Sohmer meeting was an outstanding event, it seemed that French Canada's war effort had been given exactly the proper impetus and that it would only be necessary to keep it going.
Immediately following are these words:
Unfortunately, the government and particularly the recruiting authorities failed to do just that. The Conservative government of Sir Robert Borden was severely handicapped throughout the war by the fact that its French-Canadian members represented a minority instead of a majority of their compatriots.
And the further quotation at page 90:
The year 1915 was marked not only by a magnificent expansion of Canada's wit effort, but also by the revival of racial conflict and a decided break in the unanimity of French- and English-speaking Canadians for the successful prosecution of the war. . . .
Underneath this seeming unanimity, there were forces, currents of emotion and counteremotion that were destined seriously .to impede Canada's war effort and practically to destroy the 1914 enthusiasm of French Canadians for active participation in the European war.
And on the following page:
It was most unfortunate for the cause of national solidarity that the controversy over the teaching of French in the Ontario schools should have come to a head at this moment to strengthen those forces of disunion. .	.	.
The agitation over the Ontario bilingual schools . . . results in growing bitterness between' the races until the average French Canadian lost a good deal of his enthusiasm for fighting England's battles.
And on page 92:
As a result of this instinctive feeling, it was not surprising to see French Canada's war effort become less enthusiastic as the Ontario schools controversy progressed.
And further clown on the same page:
The bitterness aroused by the dispute over the Ontario bilingual schools was responsible more than anything else for the gradual slowing up of the war effort of French Canada.
And at page 93:
To have such an issue raised at a moment when mutual tolerance and cooperation were essential to a successful prosecution of the war was unfortunate in the highest degree.
I realize the time at my disposal has practically elapsed. In conclusion I would ask every hon. member to take cognizance of this work, if he sincerely desires to be posted on the exact significance of conscription as a menace to the unity of the Canadian people.
May I terminate my observations by quoting from a letter received only a few days ago from a friend:
What aire we going to do about conscription, after the plebiscite? Why hold conscription like a red rag in front of a bull? Let ns bear in mind its true significance, and drop it like a curse. Let us direct all our efforts toward any other method of raising the manpower required for the outside defence of Canada. Let us eliminate from our vocabularies this element of national discord and cleavage, and get together on some common ground where susceptibilities are not smouldering at red heat. Let us act and talk more like brothers under the skin, which we really are. Let us consolidate our forces, not divide them, bearing in mind the tremendous task which we all have of winning this war at the side of our sister nations of the commonwealth.
To indicate that there are no hard feelings in my heart toward any hon. member who may have criticized me, and particularly toward the leader of the opposition, may I, through you, sir, and with my compliments, offer a gift of this book to the leader of the opposition so that he may have an opportunity of studying it and conveying some of its contents to his fellow members.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South):	Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention
to follow the arguments of the last speaker except to make reference to some of the statements which he made. He referred to the question of conscription. This question of conscription has been raised so often in this house that one would think we did not have conscription in Canada. We have conscription in Canada; let us face the fact. The only difference is that we have not conscription for overseas service. Boys are being taken away from the farms and factories of this country and conscripted into the Canadian army. I think we should make that perfectly clear and get away from this nonsense of intimating that we have not conscription in this country. Furthermore, I should have thought that the last speaker in his eloquent pleading for national unity would have committed himself as to where he stands on this question of the plebiscite and what active part he intends to
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Homuth

take to try to get the people of Canada to vote "yes" to relieve the government of restrictions.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: May I point out to the hon. gentleman that I have done so already.


Mr. HOMUTH:: I am glad to hear it, because the hon. member's speech this afternoon did anything but help to create unity in this country. I think the address of the hon. gentleman will do more to create disunity in Canada than any other thing.
I do not intend to deal with the general question of the plebiscite, because that has been dealt with already. The house has passed on the matter and we are going to have a plebiscite. I had thought that the discussion on the second reading of the bill was limited to a discussion of its principle. My own opinion is that the hon. member who has just spoken was entirely out of order. In fact, I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was out of order yesterday because there was very little discussion of the principle of the bill. What I want to deal with is the principle and the proponents of the bill.
I have listened carefully to the arguments which have been advanced for and against the plebiscite during the debate on the resolution and so far on the bill itself. I listened carefully to the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, which was practically all on the question of holding a plebiscite. This bill and those speeches must revive in the mind of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) some fond memories of his political career, and also of some of the speeches the Prime Minister has made in the past. I can imagine the Minister of Mines and Resources sitting in his seat and every once in a while giving a little squirm when some criticism of the War-time Elections Act and of Union government crossed the floor of the house, evidently aimed at the Conservative party but sometimes hitting him in passing. I can hear him saying, "Ouch, that hurts," when some of those barbs struck him. The Minister of Mines and Resources was first elected to the Canadian House of Commons under the War-time Elections Act, 1917, and his mind must have gone back to those days. I have here a few extracts from some of the speeches which the Minister of Mines and Resources made during that campaign. They are interesting when compared with his attitude to-day on this question and his very loyal-I think that is the best term to use-support which he gives the present Prime Minister.
Speaking at Carman, Manitoba, on December 3, 1917, the Minister of Mines and Resources, who was then a Union government candidate, said:
Conscript wealth as well as flesh and blood.

He offered hearty congratulations to the Liberals who because of their loyalty and sincerity had joined the Union government and deserted Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Then on December 13, 1917, he said:
Compulsory military service, as the Honourable Arthur Meighen has said, is the rock upon which Union government is built.
At that time he was a strong supporter of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. He followed his every speech and he watched his every gesture ; he considered him one of the great Canadians. He then went on to say:
There is no chance of a referendum if this Union government is defeated on Monday next. Canada will then be committed to a policy which will bring shame to her.
Sir Wilfrid had proposed a referendum. On December 14, 1917, there was a tremendous crowd in Grace church, Winnipeg. Speaking at that meeting the Minister of Mines and Resources said:
I do not question Sir Wilfrid Laurier's loyalty, but i do question the loyalty of those who are standing behind him in Quebec. The very best element in the Liberal party is in support of this Union government.
This Liberal party is now supported by all members, whether they come from other provinces or from the province of Quebec. Needless to say his leader, the present Prime Minister of Canada, was not in that group in 1917. The minister said:
When the boys go over the top there is no question as to whether they are Liberal or Conservative. Cannot we too stand united and go over the top on December 17?
The Prime Minister has talked a good deal about national unity. I should like to refer to a speech which he made in 1940 as it relates to-the bill now before the house. Referring to national unity, the Prime Minister said:
Least of all was it brought about by pledges to extend the life of parliament in a time of war without any reference to the people, or to form a so-called "national" government that might enforce conscription or disfranchise many classes of Canadian citizens. The memories of those experiences in the last war are still bitter in the minds of the Canadian people.
In dealing with the present bill, we can only do so perhaps by comparing it with the War-time Elections Act of 1917. The government has found that the country is at war and that it is necessary during this war to take a vote on a certain question. In arranging to take that vote they find that they have to present to the house a bill which will provide for those who may or may not be able to vote. They have a problem on their hands which to my mind they will find it difficult to solve. We must remember that in the county of Waterloo, in some of the neighbouring counties and in many other

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Homuth
places throughout Canada, whenever it has been found useful to use it since 1917, the old War-time Elections Act has been dragged out of the closet and waved before the eyes of electors to whom it might mean something. And so this bill is presented to the house. I think I am not unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, when I say that this bill contains more political trickery than any other piece of legislation that has ever been introduced into the House of Commons.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Is the hon. member supporting or opposing it?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I shall tell my hon. friend all about that. But first I want to compare this bill with the Wartime Elections Act of 1917.	.
The act of 1917 contains clauses with which I thoroughly disagree, clauses which in my opinion were unfair and should never have been embodied in an election act. But this bill contains clauses which are or might be just as vicious. By the act of 1917 the franchise was extended to certain classes of women in this country. There was no women's franchise in Canada in 1917. The first time the franchise was extended to women was in Ontario in the elections of 1919. But in the act of 1917 the franchise was given to the wives and mothers of men who were overseas, and after all, I know of no one who was more interested in the war than the wives and mothers who were waiting patiently and anxiously for husband or son to come home, waiting perhaps only to receive a telegram saying they would never be home again.


Mr. McLARTY:: Surely the hon. gentleman is not suggesting that they are disfranchised under this bill?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am not suggesting that at all. I am comparing some of the clauses of the act of 1917 with some of the terms of this bill, which certainly are not clear to me, and unless they are very much modified, will not be clear to the electors.
The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) the other day referred to paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of section 4 of this bill, which deals with those who are barred from voting on the plebiscite through being barred in the province in which they live. He made an eloquent plea that the great Liberal party should never do a thing like this; he appealed to the great principles of Liberalism in urging that this provision should be struck out of the bill. So far as pleading for the principles of Liberalism is concerned, he was pleading for something that is deader than a mackerel. Nevertheless he made the statement, and I reiterate it, that this clause is one of the most dangerous that could be put in any
election act. Suppose a German warship should be able to approach, let us say, some town in Prince Edward Island, and it was feared that German fifth columnists in Prince Edward Island might become active, and that therefore the legislature immediately met and decided to intern many of them and deprive them of their right to vote in a provincial election. That would mean that everyone of German origin throughout Canada would be debarred1 from voting on the plebiscite, and that might happen two days before the plebiscite vote was taken. People of German origin throughout Canada would be debarred from voting on the plebiscite, thousands of mothers and fathers whose sons went overseas in the last war and died for this country- families who have been settled here for a hundred: and twenty to a hundred and fifty years and have played their part in every war in which Canada and the empire have been engaged. That disqualification might apply to other races. Why the clause is in there at all I do not know unless the government was given to understand that it applies to the Japanese because of the situation in British Columbia. If that be so, let us be frank and put it in the bill that the Japanese are barred from voting. But why should the bill contain such a general clause as this?
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a point yesterday which I think was well taken-that this bill would bring about a complete change in our constitutional set-up and system of government in Canada. He made that so clear that the point needs no labouring. But I go further. I remember what happened when the National Resources Mobilization Act was before the house, and the national registration. We had a meeting in the railway committee room at which Mr. Justice Davis and the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who was then also Minister of National War Services, discussed this whole matter with the members of this house. At that time they said there would be no exemptions whatsoever under the National Resources Mobilization Act. They did provide, however, for indefinite postponements for members of two religious creeds, the Doukhobors and the Mennonites. But for fear there would be resentment among the other peoples of this country because the Doukhobors and the Mennonites were being granted an indefinite postponement the government decided to establish and did establish work camps, and the boys of those- two faiths were taken from their homes, from the farms of this country, and sent into those camps to build useless roads that some tourists may drive over years hence. But in western Canada the Doukhobors, I understand, refused to
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Homuth

go into these camps, and so they were taken before the courts and sentenced, some of them to serve time in gaol, some to pay a fine; and in the event of not paying the fine they had to serve an extra month in gaol. Now they are free. I doubt whether the government will call them and fine them and gaol them again, 'because they have purchased their freedom by serving two months in gaol and paying a fine of $200, or serving three months in gaol. From a casual reading of this bill one would think that these people were denied the right to vote on the plebiscite, or that if they did vote on it they would be subject to military service. That is the general impression one gets from a first reading of the bill. But as a matter of fact it does not deny to them the right to vote on the plebiscite. The conscientious objectors, the Mennonites and the Douklhabors, can vote on this plebiscite, and that is part of the trickery that is in this bill. The government should make it abundantly clear to the people of this country whether or not these people are going to be allowed to vote on the plebiscite. It is not clear- now.
Take the case of a Mennonite or a Douk-hobor family, consisting of the father, the mother, three daughters over twenty-one and therefore old enough to vote, and a son of military age. If the son votes he is liable to military service, but the father, the mother and the three daughters can vote, knowing that they will not be required to serve; the son refrains from voting and is not liable to military service; and there are five votes in that family against the plebiscite. That is according to a provision of this bill. The government is in the position of saying that while on the face of it it looks as though these people dare not vote, in a very subtle way we have arranged that they can vote, because the only one who is debarred from voting is the son of military age. These people do not have to fight for their country or serve in any capacity, and five out of a family of six will be permitted to vote against the plebiscite. Surely that is not the type of legislation we want. .


Mr. ROEBUCK:: What does the hon. member suggest?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What do I suggest? I suggest that the government come out honestly and say where they stand on this matter, whether these people have or have not the right to vote. So far as I am concerned, let me tell my hon. friend that any citizens of this country who, while enjoying the freedom, the opportunities and the protection which this country and this empire give them, are not prepared to serve in the military forces or the non-combatant forces

to the very limits of which they are capable, are not fit to be called Canadians. That is my opinion, and I have no hesitation in expressing it. The Mennonites are not averse to serving; they are prepared to do anything they can in support of our war effort so long as they do not have to bear arms and kill, because to do so is against the principles of their religion. But there are many things which they could do, and do much better than they are being done to-day, without dragging them off their farms and putting them in camps.
Let me say further that this bill does not jibe with the war service act, because, while these provisions are in the bill, these people are subject to being taken out and put in those camps. I wonder whether the Secretary of State drew up this bill. I do not know, but I should not be surprised if he did, because it is just about as double-barrelled as many of the orders in council which came from the Labour department when he was in charge of it, and the meaning of which half the time we did not know.
Also, Mr. Speaker, there is no provision to get out the vote. The Prime Minister called yesterday for national unity; he asked hon. members to go home, organize their ridings, engage the help of service clubs and other people to serve as returning officers, scrutineers, and so forth, for no compensation. I believe many people can be persuaded to da it. But when he calls for national unity, the place for him to start, so far as this plebiscite is concerned, is within the ranks of his own party; because the only people in this house who have said that they would refuse to release the government from its promise to-the people are members within his own ranks, and the only organizations in respect of this plebiscite in Canada to-day are those which are opposed to it. To judge by some of the speeches delivered in this chamber, and by a meeting which was held in Montreal and ended in a riot, a tremendous organization is going on against releasing the government from its promise. Now, what does the government intend to do in order to ensure that there is an equally strong, strenuous and active organization to see that there is a sufficient vote to release it from its promise? It has a tremendous responsibility. I am fearful of the position of this country in the eyes not only of our own people but of the other-nations of the world, if this plebiscite should be adverse to releasing the government. It would be a tragedy were such a thing ta occur.


Hughes Cleaver: Well, then, why not
support it?

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Roebuck


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am supporting it. Who said I am not?


Hughes Cleaver: I have not heard any word of support so far, and I have been listening.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. member for
Halton (Mr. Cleaver) is continually interjecting remarks on things he knows nothing about. He is like the famous Topsy; he doesn't know where he came from and he doesn't know where he is going!-politically.


Hughes Cleaver: I have not boxed the compass yet, though.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Now, Mr. Speaker, I say this, and in all seriousness. The Prime Minister has a tremendous job on his hands. He has first of all to close up his own ranks, to see to it that his own supporters in this house get out and do the job which he is asking us to do. He need have no fears about what we are going to do. He need have no doubt about the stand which the opposition will take. Our leader has made it abundantly plain. But if this plebiscite results in a negative vote, Canada will stand in a very serious position.
This w:eek we had a secret session of the house to get information on our war effort. In May we are going to take a plebiscite; the people are to be asked to relieve the government of a promise. Yet they have no such knowledge as we have of the war situation. It is time that the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet told them plainly just what that situation is, and how great a danger it holds for Canada and for everything we hold dear. Rather than see the plebiscite defeated I would endorse action by the government to withdraw the whole thing from this house and forget the matter entirely. Unfortunately the government, in its effort not to promote national unity but to play with this question, has grabbed a wild cat by the tail.


Mr. MacNICOL:: It dare not let go.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is afraid to hang on and it dare not let go. In my opinion it would be better to let go and take a few scratches rather than, by hanging on, to endanger very seriously Canada's war effort.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: The hon. gentleman who just sat down stated that the government has a wild cat by the tail and cannot let go. Possibly the illustration is unfortunate from his point of view, because hon. gentlemen opposite did have that wild cat by the tail and have now let go.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). It is notable for what
it does not say rather than for what it says. The argument against the plebiscite was riding high, wide and handsome until a few days ago, when the opposition observed that they had a wild cat by the tail. I note that to-day they no longer oppose the plebiscite-it is too much like a wild cat to hold by the tail'; they limit themselves to making attacks on small details of the bill which no doubt will be settled in committee in a way satisfactory to all concerned.
For instance there was the attack by the hon. gentleman from Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) on section 5 of the bill, which is directed possibly towards the Mennonite or Doukhobor vote of the west. That section provides that those who vote on the plebiscite may not later claim exemption from military service. The hon. gentleman worked himself up into a great heat and fury about some Mennonite family who might all vote with the exception only of those liable for military service. I asked him what he suggested and he went into a heated reply but did not answer the question. A friend at my side handed me a book in which he pointed to a quotation from some philosopher of old who said "in politics heat is in inverse proportion to knowledge". I thought it applicable and timely because, although the hon. gentleman got very warm, he did not give me any knowledge as to what he proposed to do. What would hon. members do under these circumstances, granted the picture is correct as he has presented it? Would they disfranchise all the Mennonites and all the Doukhobors? Would they not make those who vote liable to military service? It seems to me that a practical viewpoint rather than a condition of heat is required when one is discussing the details of a bill. Is not the bill as it stands probably the best solution that could be obtained under the circumstances? It provides that young men capable of military service may not vote on the question and later claim exemption. .
I am inclined to compliment the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) upon his attack on section 3 of the bill. There are before the house at the moment two principles involved in this bill. One is the principle of giving to the executive the power to have general plebiscites on any question and at all times. That is what is expressed in the bill. But we now have the intimation by the government that this will later be changed in committee. W'ere the bill to stand as it now reads, I would approach it with a great deal of doubt; I do not like these general powers given to an executive unless there is a distinct understanding as to how they are to be used.
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Roebuck

We have the illustration of the War Measures Act passed in the early days of this parliament-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not this
parliament. I would say it was at the time of the last war.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I accept the correction.
It was before this parliament was elected but after the war was declared.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, it was passed in 1914-in the former war; it was dormant in the interval until this war.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Then it became active and was re-used during this parliament.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was
revived.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Yes; I thank my hon.
friend for the correction. When that measure was revived-I do not remember that there was a vote in the house, but, at that time, I suppose no hon. member, whether in the executive or out of it, anticipated that by this time there would be some twenty thousand orders in council passed. I suppose there was no one who anticipated that these orders in council would go into such broad measures as the limitation of prices, the regulation of wages and other such matters of a civil nature. When you hand over power to an executive you must look to it that the limitations are such that the executive will not go further than you would yourself. I have looked with regret on the limitation of the activities of parliament and the absorption of so much power by the executive, so I would hesitate to give to the executive the power to hold general plebiscites on any question. I compliment the hon. member for Lake Centre for having objected while this only was before us. But with the assurance that we now have from the government I think we may assume that what is before us is a plebiscite on the question:
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?
That is the matter before us now.
I did not speak in the debate on the address in reply. It was very largely given up to the discussion of the pros and cons of conscription. I did not speak because I felt that practically every veiwpoint was covered and because I felt that very little was to be gained by much talking on that most contentious problem; that the more one spoke on it, the more angry one became, the further the disputants drew apart, and the more difficult became the situation presented to the Canadian people. There would

be very little difficulty indeed, were hon. members on this side of the house left free from the influence of stirred-up public opinion abroad, in arranging some reasonable solution of that question. The whole difficulty arises from much talk and perhaps a too partisan attitude on the question.
I did not take part in the argument. Yet I feel that for the sake of my own con*-stituents I should not allow this opportunity to go by to put on record where I stand on this question.
I am neither a conscriptionist nor an anti-conscriptionist. There are two main arguments on the matter. There is first the desire which I and many others have for a voluntary army rather than a conscript army, because we believe that the volunteer army is better. I can go back in my own memory to the time: when we used to hold almost in contempt the conscript armies of Europe, and used to look with pride on the British armies of those days which were raised by voluntary enlistment. I am reinforced in my opinion by the remarks of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who said it was most important that our present splendid volunteer army be reinforced 'by volunteers and not by conscripts. I am satisfied that one of the prime requisites-or perhaps that is a little too strongly stated; that one of the best qualifications for joining the armed forces of Canada is willingness to serve. It is a most important factor; and I cannot see, as some people argue, that anything is to be gained, as far as the army is concerned, by abolishing voluntary service and replacing it with some kind of compulsion. So I am not in favour of compulsion for compulsion's sake.
On the other hand, I have before me a comment made by Mr. Winston Churchill in one of his speeches, published in his recent book, which I should like to read to the house. He was speaking about the conscription act that was introduced into the British house during this war, and said:
At the beginning of the war of 1914 we soon had a million volunteers on our hands, for the bulk of whom no weapons were available. Ultimately over two million men demanded to be led to the front. But after that the limits of voluntary recruitment were exhausted. The war continued and the armies could not be maintained. Then we had the hateful spectacle of volunteers who had been wounded twice or even thrice being sent back to the trenches, and of regular soldiers who had served two whole years in the front line being deprived of their right to claim expiry of their eomitriact: This proved intolerable to the national sense of justice. Moreover, two million households and families whose menfolk had borne the whole burden were infuriated by the fact that, there were very large numbers of perfectly fit men remaining at home, filling at higher wages

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Roebuck
the jobs of those who had volunteered. It was this sense of wrong and injustice, which spread through the country in the spring and summer of 1916, that alone carried the conscription bill.
So you 'have these two conflicting ideas: the value of a volunteer army on the one hand, and the utter unfairness of voluntary service on the other; the unfairness of having in the army only those whose public spirit is sufficiently great to induce them to enlist, and the unfairness of allowing those whose public spirit is insufficient to remain in the safety and comfort of their homes. Those two arguments are irreconcilable; the longer you talk about them, the more they clash. So you come to the point where you must make practical decisions, rather than an out-and-out* choice between the two.
The time has not yet arrived in Canada, as it did in Great Britain, when people are outraged at the unfairness of the situation. If the war continues; if casualties increase; if there are published in the press long lists of names of those who have been lost; if many months of arduous service go by, that feeling will become overwhelming in this country, the unfairness of keeping the public-spirited men in the front lines while the loafers, the shirkers, sit comfortably at home. Therefore the desire for the fairness of selective service will overcome our desire for a volunteer army. We must put ourselves in a position to do what is right under the circumstances as they exist from time to time.
For that reason I am heartily in accord with the bill now before the house. The opposition to it is perhaps uninformed; perhaps it refuses actually to see or consider the points involved. May I lay before the house a resolution which I recently received from the clerk of the city council of Toronto. Mr. J. W. Somers, city clerk, wrote me as follows:
Pursuant to instruction, I forward herewith, a copy of a resolution which was adopted by the city council, at its meeting on February 9, 1942, as follows:
"Whereas, it is the proposed intention of the federal government to hold a plebiscite on the general question of conscription and whereas the cost of the same has been estimated to be well over one million dollars, and whereas, at this time, leadership is needed to be given, more than ever, by the elected government at Ottawa, and whereas the holding of such a plebiscite will tend to harm rather than help Canada's war effort;
"Be it resolved: that this city council petitions the federal government to reconsider its decision on a plebiscite of this nature being placed before the peoples of this country at this most critical time, and further, a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet and to all federal representatives of this city."
I received that resolution, and it may be of some interest if I may be permitted to read my reply. I wrote the city clerk in part as follows:
I am glad to know the view of the city council in respect to this matter, and thank you for your letter.
It strikes me, however, that the resolution is incomplete, and I would like a little more information. I am of opinion that our selective service law requires amendment, and I think the council agrees with me on this. It does not make clear, however, how the government is to free itself of the pledge given to the public, if a plebiscite is not held. I am sure that the council does not suggest that the government violate or disregard its pledge, and I am also fairly confident that it does not advocate that the government carry on indefinitely as we are. As the act now stands, we could not send draftees across the international border into the United States, nor could we, for instance, hold the Aleutian islands against the Japanese with drafted men.
I value the thought and wisdom of the city council and I would like to know what it is they actually propose.
That letter was dated February 16, and so far I have not received a reply. In private discussions of the matter I have found that when you bring somebody right up against the question: "Do you advocate that we stay as we are, or do you advocate that the government violate a pledge?" you seldom obtain an answer, certainly not from a partisan.
I think many people have not really realized what the attack on the plebicsite means.
Yesterday the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) advised that all 245 members of this house join together and adopt a resolution releasing ourselves from the pledge. The hon. member seemed to think we might then in honour proceed to deal with the matter as we saw fit.
I spoke in the city of Toronto on Sunday evening on this question, to a very considerable audience. I told them that I personally, in that very hall, and from that very platform had told those very people that if the government was returned to power, the government led by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) they would not have conscription. I was justified in that statement because I had the pledge of the Prime Minister, and I also pointed out in that speech that I also had the pledge of the then leader of the opposition, Doctor Manion. Therefore, no matter which party won, there would not be conscription in Canada during this war, until another general election took place.
I told these people that I personally did not stand for broken pledges and that I would not be a party to making the breaking of pledges a principle of political action. That
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Roebuck

is my view, and that is where I hold myself right now. I will not take part in the breaking of these pledges; and, Mr. Speaker, I do not see how, if I joined with the hon. member for New Westminster, (Mr. Reid), and the two of us concocted something, I would in any way relieve myself from the pledge. Nor if I added all the gentlemen around me would I relieve myself from it. Nor indeed would I help myself in any way if I joined with the hon. member for Yale and the leader of the opposition.
There is an old story to the effect that when thieves fall out, honest men get their due. It is when thieves join together that honest men must beware. One cannot recover from a pledge solemnly given to the public by joining in some kind of conspiracy to get our own way without their consent. We would not increase by one iota the morality of our action by each severally violating his pledge, in association with all other members of parliament who were violating theirs.
Therefore in my judgment, so far as I can see, there is no way of handling the practical needs of the situation other than by taking a plebiscite and asking for a release. That is the honest way, the decent way; it is needed; it is necessary.
The hon. member for Waterloo South was most anxious about the vote, whether it was or was not going to carry. He complained that we should throw obligation on hon. members of the oposition to have it carried. His question was: What is the government going to do? Well, I throw back the question. I can tell him what I will do, because I have already done it. I advocate voting "yes" on the plebiscite. What are you going to do? There is no doubt about what the great majority, at least 95 per cent, of hon. members on this side of the house will do. Now, what will the opposition do?
There is no lack of money, no lack of organization on the Conservative side. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) referred to the junta which recently met in Toronto to stimulate an all-out war effort, a junta which spent thousands of dollars upon advertising in the public press.


Mr. JACKMAN:: They were all Liberals.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: The same gentlemen, in association wTith my hon. friends across the aisle, can still spend their money, and get up a campaign of that kind. I hope they will be more successful than they were with the last one. But still they may do it; they may advocate it.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: What is the basis for the use of the term "in association

with"? The hon. gentleman used the expression "in association with my hon. friends across the aisle".


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: What is the basis for that suggestion?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: The basis for that statement?


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Why, the basis lies in the fact that the junta which gathered in the roof garden of the Royal York hotel played to the extent of their ability the Conservative hand in the by-election.


Joseph Henry Harris: That is just your opinion.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Yes, just my opinion- and it is supported by the facts. Furthermore, the results of the by-elections also support my statement that their action was attended with a minimum of success.
Perhaps the house would be interested in my own experience in connection with that advertising, and the junta's work. You know, I come from Toronto, and I am proud of that fact. I am proud of it, notwithstanding the fact that public opinion of Toronto is so often misrepresented by wealthy Conservatives. There are two cities of Toronto: there is the great mass of the people, and there are those highly respectable gentlemen who so often assume to speak on their behalf.
Perhaps the house would be interested to know the extent of the success of the so-called1 all-out war campaign. I represent a constituency in the centre of Toronto, a city which is looked upon as imperialistic, Tory and hide-bound. It is a field in which the three great provincial newspapers circulate- and there can be no question about the circulation, because the advertising these gentlemen paid for was published in all the newspapers. There were pages of it, day after day, column upon column of exhortation to the electors in my riding to write to me and tell me what I should do. There was column after column of exhortation. I read in one of the newspapers that one man is reported to have telephoned to seven hundred people, asking them to write to their member urging conscription, all-out war or something of the kind.
That campaign continued for days. My name was given as the representative in my constituency, and my address was furnished. Under those circumstances, knowing the power of the press, knowing the influence of advertising, how many replies, Mr. Speaker, do

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Maclnnis
you suppose I received? I represent a eon-stituency of between 60,000 and 100,000 people. How many truckloads of letters do you suppose I received? It will be recalled that not only were the people directed to send letters, but they were told to cut copies of the advertisement from the newspapers, place them in envelopes and mail them to their representatives.


Mr. REID:: No postage was required.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: No postage was required, and my address had been given. Remember, I represent about 60,000 people right in the middle of this hide-bound city of Toronto. How many truckloads did I get?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: About three hundred?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: About three hundred? The hon. member for one of the Toronto ridings suggests that I received three hundred truckloads. Well, ladies and1-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: It was the beauty to my right that caused me to make the mistake. Hon. members may be interested when I tell them that I received less than one hundred letters.


Joseph Henry Harris: They knew to whom they were writing.
.Mr. ROEBUCK: Yes, they did. The explanation was that the people in my constituency had no' reason to suppose that they were any more patriotic than I am, or that they had any more knowledge of what was right in the circumstances than I had. They refused to be stampeded by newspaper advertising, or by wealthy people who gathered at sumptuous dinners in the Royal York hotel.
There are two cities of Toronto. There are the broad-minded people of that city. I join with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) when he said a few days ago that Toronto was not a narrow city, but rather that it was broad-minded.	*


Mr. MARTIN:: It has narrow streets.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: It has wide and beautiful streets-and a few narrow ones, too. And some back lanes, shall I say?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I would not know that.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Yes, both in thought and in physical fact. The unfortunate part is that the narrow lanes are the ones too often seen, and the people who live in narrow lanes of thought, the ones too often heard, while the great mass of the people of the city of Toronto are inarticulate but thinking all the time.
I want my riding to understand that I am going to vote "yes" for this bill, that I am going to urge them to vote "yes" on the plebiscite.
There are two phases to this question. One phase has been dealt with so thoroughly by the Prime Minister that there is practically nothing left to be said on the question. His magnificent speech yesterday was conclusive, but one thing sticks in my mind.
We have been dealing with the question of how we can raise men, whether by voluntary enlistment or by conscription. There is, however, a second phase which has not been mentioned but which is just about as important. It occurs after these men have been raised; and a considerable number have been raised by the selective system. As I stated in my letter to the city council of Toronto, we are not in a position to use these men if it is necessary to cross the international border between ourselves and the United States, or in order to protect the islands on the Pacific coast. It is most unlikely, but it might happen that an enemy expeditionary force be landed on the Pacific coast and that it hold the passes of the Rockies against us. Our only hope of dislodging such a force would be by sending men to the south and bringing them up along the coast. As things stand now, we could not do that. We cannot raise men for service overseas by selective call. And having so raised men, we cannot use them on any expedition which takes them across our borders or beyond the three-mile limit.
So I submit that, whether you are a con-scriptionist or an anti-conscriptionist, the necessity for the correction of this situation is such that you should vote "yes" on the plebiscite.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow the previous speaker, but I was interested in the reference he made to the two cities in the good city of Toronto. That is a situation which applies and has applied everywhere for many years. Lord Beaconsfield, at one time Prime Minister of Great Britain, wrote a book about the two nations, the two Englands. He wrote about the England1 of the rich, the wealthy and the aristocrats, and the England of the toiling masses, the mud sills upon which the other England rested. He made a very good job of it too.
There are one or two- points in connection with this bill upon which I should like to comment. One has been cleared up to some extent by the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday. It is to be regretted that his speech of yesterday was not made during the debate on the address. It

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Maclnnis

would appear that he was speaking then with the by-elections in mind, while his speech yesterday quite properly had the plebiscite in mind. As the discussion went on during the debate on the address I was at a loss to know whether the proposed plebiscite was being introduced because the cabinet felt that it was desirable to have this additional power or because of the slings and arrows of the "committee of two hundred". The speeches of hon. members opposite throughout the address debate stressed two things, criticism of the "committee of two hundred" and satisfaction with the voluntary system. This was true to such an extent that I felt somewhat concerned about the fate of the plebiscite.
If we are going to have a plebiscite-and evidently we are-it is absolutely necessary that it should carry. Neither the government nor the country can afford to have the plebiscite defeated, or carried without strong support. It seems to me that the government will be in a bad position, both for its own sake and for the sake of the country's war effort if the vote is indecisive, that is, if there is only a small majority in favour of the plebiscite, or if there is a majority in favour of it in one part of the country and against it in another, even though there be an over-all majority. I am going to indicate to the government where the danger of the plebiscite being defeated1 lies, if it is going to be submitted as it now reads.
In both the speech from the throne and the speech by the deputy governor general upon the prorogation of parliament there is given in unmistakable language the reasons which the government should put forward as to why the plebiscite must carry. Speaking at the prorogation of parliament on January 21 last, the deputy governor general said:
Since the present session opened, we have witnessed 'the extension of war until, to-day, it encompasses the globe. A.s aggression has succeeded aggression, the active resistance of free peoples everywhere has risen to meet it. The myth of national isolation has vanished from the earth. It is now recognized that the freedom of each nation is bound up in the freedom of all.
I agree with that, but what has been said by hon. members opposite since parliament opened on January 22 to bring home to the people of Canada, to bring home to the isolationists of Canada, that Canada's cause is one with the cause of every free nation in the world? A similar statement is made in the speech from the throne. The very first paragraph reads:
There no longer can be a.ny question as to the character and scope of the present war. ft is a world-wide conflict between irreconcilable farces. On every continent, including the confines of our own, and on all oceans, forces that
[Mr. Maclnnis.3
aim at world domination oppose forces that seek the preservation of freedom. In every quarter of the globe, civilization is confronted by savagery.
It appears to me that in that paragraph lies the reason why the government of Canada should have power to use the whole resources of Canada in men and materials to fight the enemy wherever the enemy may be found.
As I said, the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday to some extent cleared away one of my fears, that is, that the government did not sufficiently realize the urgency of the situation. It is urgent. Speaking for myself and also, I think, for the group with whom I sit, we believe the government should be given the freedom and authority which it seeks. But we are not satisfied to leave the matter there. From what I hear from my own province of British Columbia, I am satisfied that if the plebiscite is put in its present form to the people of Canada without some assurance that not only men will be conscripted but also the wealth and industry and material resources of this country to the last ounce and last cent and that those resources are going to be used, the plebiscite will be defeated in British Columbia just as sure as the people are asked to vote on it. The same thing will happen, I believe, in other provinces.
The Prime Minister in his speech yesterday said that the plebiscite was not a question of conscription but a question of freeing the government's hands. It is just nonsense to talk in that way because, when the people of my province are voting on the plebiscite, they are not voting to free the hands of the government. No they are voting on conscription. When the people in the province of Quebec vote on the plebiscite, what are they voting on? They are voting on the question of conscription. No mere play with words can alter that fact. The plebiscite says that it is for the purpose of freeing the government's hands, but the government's hands are tied only in one respect, in respect only of the compulsory enlistment of men for overseas service. Let the government be frank with the people. Let the government take the people into its confidence. Let the government appeal to the intelligence of the people and tell them exactly what the circumstances are and what they are voting for. Let the government demonstrate itself by its dealings with the people that it believes in those phrases it uses when it says we are fighting for freedom and democracy and such things as that.
It is essential that the government should have this power. But that does not necessarily mean that Canada would send more men out of the country than it is sending now. That would depend a great deal on how the war goes. To

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Maclnnis
be quite frank, I am not sure that anything has been gained so far in a military way because of the men Canada sent out of the country. I am saying that nothing has been gained up until the present time, and that the men could have been used to much better advantage at home. But I say again that this does not mean that I am opposed to sending them out of the country if that is considered necessary. They should be sent where and when they are needed. We are fighting a worldwide war. We are fighting out in the far east. Why in the world should Canada send soldiers to the far east to fight the Japanese when China has her millions who are anxious to fight the Japanese. Not only that, but her soldiers are acclimatized and know and understand the country where the fighting is taking place. Canada's work in these circumstances would be to supply the Chinese with the arms with which to fight. We cannot do both things. We cannot be on the sea and on the fighting front in the far east, and at the same time be producing equipment in the factories in Canada.
Since it is nearly six o'clock I dhall try to conclude before the house rises. In my opinion there are two things the government should do if it wants to get a satisfactory affirmative vote on the plebiscite. First, it should give a solemn undertaking, just as binding as the pledges that were given in regard to enlistment for service overseas, that concurrently with the conscription of man-power there shall be conscription of industry and finance. I want to say here as clearly and as definitely as I can that if that is not done, there is great danger that the plebiscite will be defeated. Second, as I have already said, the government should tell the people the urgency of the war situation and indicate clearly to them that it is going, if necessary, to use the power it is asking for-going to use the whole resources of the country. I ask the government to observe the changes that are taking place in the mind of the people all over the world. There is a change of mind in Great Britain. Many people are convinced that our reverses in the far east have been to a large extent due to our refusal in the past to grant or guarantee to the people of the far east equality of status with ourselves. If we do not do that-and there is rising hope that it will be done-we are not going to get as much out of this war as we thought we would.
There are one or two suggestions I should like to make in regard to the taking of the vote. There is danger, unless a great deal of enthusiasm is created in connection with the plebiscite, that the vote will be very small. We know that in parliamentary elections great pressure has to be used1 to get the people out 44561-S5i
to the polls. The opposing candidates have an incentive to apply that pressure, and they try to get out every possible vote. But such an incentive will be largely lacking in taking the vote on the plebiscite. There may be a general desire to get out a large vote, but there will be no specific desire unless the thing is well organized. We should see that every possible vote is polled. I understand that the statement has been made by the chief electoral officer that the enumeration of voters and the other work necessary for the taking of the vote will be carried out on a patronage basis. It is a terrible thing that the government should allow a statement like that to be made.


Norman Alexander McLarty: May I interrupt, for a moment, my hon. friend? I have not heard of any statement such as that having been made. I do not know the circumstances, but I would doubt the correctness of the report.
Mr. MaoINNIS: I did not read it myself in the press, but I have it from people whose word I accept, that they read it in the Ottawa Journal of last Saturday. It is something with which the government has plenty of time to deal.
May I offer, what seems to me to be a feasible suggestion, that instead of having an enumeration of voters and voters' lists such as are used at a general election, there should be a registration of voters along the same lines as the general registration of 1940. It would be obligatory on each person to go to a particular station to register, and if he were entitled to vote he would receive his ballot and proceed to vote. Of course there may be valid objections to the proposal; I do not know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why does the hon. member say it should be obligatory? It was obligatory.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, it was obligatory in 1940. I am referring, not to the general election but to the national registration conducted by the Department of National War Services. An individual would not be compelled to vote, but he would be at the place where he is entitled to vote, he would receive a ballot, and he could mark it either for or against the proposal or leave it blank. The registration and the voting would be carried out in one operation.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Would the hon. member make voting compulsory?


Angus MacInnis: No, I do not think so. It is the old point: you may take a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You can take voters to the poll, give them ballots,
868	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
and direct them to the polling booths, but you can't go in with them and compel them to mark their ballots.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Would the hon. member make it compulsory for everyone to attend?


Angus MacInnis: Decidedly. I would make it compulsory for them to register. Everybody was compelled to attend the national registration; there is no reason why that phase of compulsion should not be repeated.
I do not see why this suggestion could not be carried out. At any rate I hope the government will take it into consideration. Let me add that the government must give a definite assurance-one which the people will accept as binding-that its purpose is to conscript not only man-power, but the wealth and industry of this country as well, so that we can fight the war with everything we have.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to occupy a very brief
space of time this evening, and shall, so far as may be possible, devote my entire attention to this Bill No. 10 now before the house. When the speech from the throne was brought down on January 22 and it was announced that the ministry would seek release from its pre-election pledge in regard to the man-power situation by means of a plebiscite, there was not the slightest intimation that the bill to be brought down would be anything other than an enabling measure designed to fulfil the promise contained in the speech from the throne and providing a way and means whereby the people would be asked to say whether they released the Prime Minister (Mr, Mackenzie King) and the government from a past commitment with respect to a particular pledge.
When I made my remarks on January 26 they were predicated on the theory that there would be brought down an enabling measure of a particular kind and nature, patterned in some degree at least upon the Plebiscite Act of 1898, designed to enable the government to secure release from a particular commitment. When the Prime Minister made his speech on the same day the whole underlying reasoning of his statement with regard to the legislation for the plebiscite was based on the same theory. Again in the speech which I made on Wednesday the ,18th instant, just prior to the vote, I predicated my remarks

on that same theory. Again in the remarks which I made on the resolution preceding the introduction of this bill on Monday last I based my entire argument on the assumption that the bill was to deal with a particular situation in a particular way. And when on the same day the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) made his speech supporting the resolution it was, as I interpreted it, predicated on the same theory, that the house was being asked to pass a measure designed to meet a particular situation which had arisen, and from which the government sought release, and on that theory alone and to meet that situation alone. If the hon. Secretary of State had any other design, I should say that he most skilfully concealed it.
When I spoke on that resolution on Monday last I had not seen the 'bill. I had tried to get a copy-


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I stated the specific question that would be asked and stated specifically at that time that it would not be included in the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
another matter. The Secretary of State made it clear that the specific question would not be in the bill. He stated that it would be in the proclamation, and I remember interrupting, or in some manner it developed at that time that the Prime Minister stated that, if necessary, it would be put in the bill.
I tried that day to get a copy of the bill. I tried to get a copy immediately after the resolution passed and the bill was introduced, and again I failed; the bill had not been printed. I tried again early on Tuesday last and again was denied it for the same reason. I am not complaining of any lack of courtesy; the bill had not been printed. I did not apply to the minister personally for a copy of the bill; perhaps I might have done so and probably he would have given me at least a draft of it. But it was not until late on Tuesday that the bill was distributed.
I then discovered really for the first time that the bill as introduced and given first reading was not designed particularly to carry out the announcement in the speech from the throne and the announcement in the Prime Minister's speech of January 26. But to my surprise it was and is general in its nature and is designed to be general, and to import into the constitution of Canada an entirely new principle. This is a general act to be introduced in the statutes of this country, to be there for all time unless it is changed. I am going to speak later about the promise, the very definite promise, which the Prime Minister made this afternoon.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
To me that was a rather startling situation, the importation into the constitutional practice of this country of a new constitutional principle, a new instrument in government. It is chiefly because of that that I am participating even briefly in this debate to-night.
This is not only an innovation in our constitution; but, may I say, it is a violation of the political principles on which the Canadian constitution is established, principles which have been developed over the centuries by the matured experience of British statesmen; and I certainly object to the introduction of a new constitutional principle in the system of our government in Canada.


Mr. CRERAR:: It was never contemplated.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We can only take things as they are.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend has been told at least four times that we are willing to put the question in the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am coming to that. But this protest is on a matter of principle and I am entitled to put it on the record. I shall deal with the altered situation in due course, and if any credit is coming to the government and the Prime Minister I am quite prepared to give it to them. But I do protest against the introduction of this new departure in constitutional practice. This is not the bill we were promised.
There is one other protest I want to make. This bill, even if altered-and I am going to deal with that in a few minutes-merely sets up the substantive proposals of the government. It leaves the rest to a large number of regulations which we have not seen, but which I understand are ready to be taken to the committee with the bill-regulations which are in themselves legislative in character.
Let me call attention to the elections act. We have in Canada an elections act, containing a very large number of sections; and all the legislative features relating to the carrying on of elections in this country are incorporated in that legislation itself. Accompanying that election law are an equally large or perhaps a larger number of regulations. but those regulations are in no sense legislative; they are explanatory, instructional, interpretative.
Let me make that point clear. Here it is proposed to do by regulation something that under the election law of this country we do by legislation. That itself is a departure from established principles. Of course I have not seen the regulations; none of us have. We do not know what they contain; but I would not be astonished if a large number of
sections of the regulations deal with this question of legislating in respect of the plebiscite that is to be held. That, I think, is quite improper. That function should be reserved to parliament.
Let me turn now to the bill itself. As I said before, it merely sets up the substantive law relating to the holding of a plebiscite; and, as I stated a while ago, until it is changed^ it provides for the taking of a plebiscite on any question that may be submitted by authority of the governor in council, under proclamation. The Prime Minister stated very early in the discussion, I think, that the question would be incorporated in the bill itself, and for that I thank him; but I am going to ask him to go further than that. Unless there would be a violation of some understanding, arrangement or agreement, I suggest to him that this bill should be entirely revamped, so that we shall not even have the appearance of incorporating into the constitutional system of this country the principle of the plebiscite. That I think he should do; and I think he has almost gone that far. Not only should he limit the operation of the statute that will be passed to the holding of this one particular plebiscite; the whole bill should be redrafted on that theory and along the line of the bill that was passed at the time the temperance plebiscite was taken away back in the last century. I believe the proper way to do that would be to withdraw this bill and bring in a new bill, based upon that theory. I do not know whether the government will do that, but I offer the suggestion. I do not think it would delay matters; so far as I am concerned I would undertake that there would be no delay, though of course one would want to see the bill.
If the government will not yield to that suggestion, then, in accordance with the undertaking given explicitly this afternoon, I ask them to give instructions to the committee, of which they will be in complete control, that the bill be revamped in committee along the lines I have suggested. I submit with great seriousness that there is a principle at stake, that this is a violation of the principle of responsible government as we understand it in Canada. If we once incorporate a principle like this into the constitutional practice of Canada,we shall have departed from every principle of representative and parliamentary government that we have followed down through the decades since Canada has been a confederation, and for decades before that under the British constitution. Under our practice the people of the country delegate to their elected representatives power to make
87o	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
laws in accordance with the constitution of the country. The principle of the plebiscite is the negation of responsible government, and so is the referendum. I did not quite understand the reference made by the Prime Minister yesterday to the referendum. I have never heard anyone recommend a referendum; at least I have not done so. I have not mentioned the question of a referendum, which of course stands upon a somewhat different principle. A plebiscite may or may not be binding upon the government that submits it, but a referendum has to do with a particular statute or proposal, and when submitted to the people it becomes binding upon the government. As I understand1 it, that, in a word, is the distinction between the two. I could not quite appreciate the point of the questions which the Prime Minister directed at me and others across the gangway here. We have never advocated a referendum. We are opposed to both referendum and plebiscite, but since the Prime Minister is bound to have a plebiscite I say, let him have it; let us get it over with; let us limit it to the particular situation and that alone, and let us not hear any more about it as an integral part of the system of responsible government in a British legislature.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend wish me to explain my reference to the plebiscite, in regard to himself?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I have no objection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It comes just to this, that my hon. friend wished me to say what I would do if we got a majority, whether I would regard that as an obligation upon the government to introduce conscription. If I were to say anything of that kind, the plebiscite thereby would in reality become a referendum. When the plebiscite was placed before the people, they would then be voting on the question of conscription, which is the very thing the plebiscite is intended not to have them do. A referendum would require the people to make a military and political decision, something which I contend should be the responsibility of the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree with the Prime Minister on that, but I had never advocated other than a plebiscite, and therefore 1 could not understand the implication of the questions he directed to me.
The Prime Minister has referred to the plebiscite, and he has argued at great length that the plebiscite would not deal with the question of conscription. Theoretically that is absolutely correct. So far as I am concerned, in whatever part I take in connection

with this plebiscite, it should not and will not; but I am going to tell him that in the country I fear it will be for or against conscription. That question will be raised, and, believe me, by his own people. It is raised now, here in this house. It was raised the other day by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot), and if I followed him correctly he reaffirmed that issue to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was raised in the recent by-elections.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It may have been. I did not take part in those by-elections;
I do not know what occurred, and I am not responsible. But I do know this, that much as the Prime Minister would like to get away from it; much as I-and I am very frank about it-should like to see the plebiscite freed from a discussion for or against conscription, I fear that is what will happen. Being anxious that something should be done in the event of a great tragedy occurring in this war, that is why I want this government to be free; that is why I want this plebiscite to pass; that is why I am going to advise my constituents, at all events, to vote yea and not nay.
I rose primarily for the purpose of voicing my protest against the form in which this legislation has been submitted. If we are to take the Prime Minister's word at its face value, as I am sure we may, then this whole bill should be redrafted. It should be either withdrawn or, when it reaches the committee, revamped to make sure that this parliament is not going to be committed to the principle of the plebiscite as an instrument of government under the British constitutional system under which this parliament is set up and under which it has been carried on during all the years. I hope this appeal will strike a responsive note in the minds of the ministry and their supporters.
I wished to say a few words about the Prime Minister's speech. He made one of the big efforts of his life.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, quite so. He is much too modest, and I really do not think anyone would have accused the Prime Minister of being unduly modest about his public efforts. As a rule they are studied efforts. While he did not use a manuscript yesterday, I am sure he spent a good deal of time in the preparation of that speech.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not spend two hours.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Suribury)


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then, of course, he is much more competent than I thought he was-and very much more competent than I am. I can say that, with all humility and modesty.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: He has had a lot of
practice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, he has had long experience, and a good deal of practice. He has had a good deal of practice in putting up straw -men to knock down; and he did that yesterday to a large degree. He has had a great deal of practice in public debates-undoubtedly more than any other man in the house. He is a past master at the art of making the worse appear the better part. There can be no doubt about that, and I pay him that compliment. That, of course, is an art, and the Prime Minister is therefore an artist.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Compliments to-night.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He asked that the public give the government a free hand. For different reasons we want the government to have a free hand. He pointed out the distinction between the legal power possessed at this time by the government, and the moral authority which it possesses, or should possess.
With respect to the legal aspect of the matter, there is not any doubt about it that parliament is sovereign and supreme. I have heard the Prime Minister ring the changes of that phrase on many, many occasions in the house. Parliament has full legal power to pass any legislation. But he bases this on a high moral plane. He says that the one limitation is a moral obligation he owes the people, and he devoted a great deal of his speech to that issue.
He made a case-of course we can have our own opinions as to whether it was a good or a bad one. But he certainly made a case at least to the satisfaction of his followers. Now I put this to him: Is the moral obligation he described of such a nature as to prevent the government from doing what is necessary in wartime, with an invasion threatened, and if the necessities of the situation are as many people believe them to be, or believe that they may become? If the Prime Minister held the opinion that it was necessary to change the mobilization act by eliminating the limiting clause, would he pause to take a plebiscite? Would he do that, at a time when the country was in danger?
Of course he denies the truth of the premise. His suggestion is that the situation is not that bad now, that we are doing nicely. Yet the war comes home to us nearer, nearer and
nearer every day. We grant-he grants-I grant-we all grant that parliament has legal power. He says the one defect is the moral obligation. Is that a detriment to doing what we ought to do, if it is the right thing to do? What did the people send us here for? Why did they give my right hon. friend such an overwhelming mandate on March 26, 1940? It was to carry on the war to a successful conclusion, no matter what the cost, no matter what the needs might be. There was no limitation from the people, because conscription as I understand it was not an issue; certainly it was not an issue with me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has asked what I would do in case of invasion, or in a perilous situation such as he has just described. Well, I say the last thing I would do would be to begin compulsorily to recruit men to send them overseas. I would keep the men at home, and see that they were prepared to meet the invasion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes. Would my right hon. friend send them to Seattle? Would he send them to the panhandle of Alaska?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not mind answering that. I regard the moral obligation as one not to send men overseas. But with respect to any technical limitation, should immediate necessity arise-in the panhandle, or any place in the vicinity of the coast of Canada-I certainly would make use of the War Measures Act to see that the men were sent, within these immediate areas, to protect our own shores.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yet that would be illegal, because of the very language the Prime Minister has put in the mobilization act. According to him, it would be immoral to send them beyond the territorial limitations of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reference was always to overseas. This is quite a different thing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the language of the mobilization act. [DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am saying what the moral obligation is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then the Prime Minister would go further than the mobilization act. He would violate the pledge in the mobilization act, because that represents government policy in the most concrete form in which policy can be formulated and set out before the people, namely in an act of parliament. The Prime Minister has proved my thesis.
872	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would get parliament to amend its provision.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, he would get parliament to amend it; and parliament would do right to amend it-and parliament can amend this situation, without going through the form of a plebiscite.	[DOT]
But, we have to have a plebiscite, so let us have it. I have said all I want to say on that point.


An hon. MEMBER:: So has the Prime Minister.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I say the Prime Minister, when he talks about moral obligations-and especially in the light of the admission he has now made-was putting up a straw man to knock down again. He has proved it himself by his utterances here to-night.
In days gone by the Prime Minister and his government have not always been so concerned about political morality. When I heard him speak yesterday I could not help recalling the days of Beauharnois. I remember the political morality of Beauharnois- how the Beauharnois corporation had applied to his government for the passage of an order in council allowing the deflection of a certain number of cubic feet per second of water through their canal at Beauharnois. I remember how the application was held off, and off, and off until the stage had been fully set. Then the government passed an order in council authorizing the diversion. We all know what happened. Hundreds of thousands of dollars contributed by the public of Canada to Beauharnois securities, I shall not say were stolen by the promoters, but were taken from those funds put up by the public and passed along by the promoters to the organizers of the Liberal party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wonder why my hon. friend would make a statement of that kind? He knows as well as I with respect to Beauharnois that not only was no charge of any kind whatsoever proved against the government, but the government's record in the matter was as straight as anything could possibly be. In addition to that, while hon. members like himself tried to make a case against the government before the public in one, two or three general elections, on every such occasion the public sent back this government with a stronger majority than ever.
My hon. friend had better be careful what he says when he talks about moral obligations. Something can be said from this side of the house, if he begins to reflect upon anyone here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not reflecting upon the government; I am reflecting upon the Liberal party. I never heard it said that it was actionable to libel a party. If it were, there would be a good many libel actions in this country. My only answer is to ask hon. gentlemen to recall the speech which the Prime Minister made from this side of the chamber in regard to the Beauharnois transaction.
Another thing about pledges. I recall the platform of 1919; I recall the various planks in that platform. Among others was one with respect to the British preference. Does the Prime Minister say that those pledges in the 1919 platform were kept? I remember hearing something about their being just a chart to go by. In his opening speech in the 1940 election the Prime Minister said that there would be extravagant statements made and promises given. Those are not his exact words. That is always done during the course of an election by everyone in the hope of influencing the votes of the electors. I do not think these extreme appeals meet with great success very often. I have been most careful about making concrete pledges because I have always had a horror of not being able to keep any concrete promise which I made. I am leery about making election pledges. I do not think promises of public works and the expenditure of the taxpayers' money and that sort of thing ever brought many votes. I know that actual expenditures on public works prior to an election do not bring votes; all they do is to make enemies. These simply illustrate the futility of using the taxpayers' funds in an attempt to influence votes. Other people's experience may be different, but that is mine.
The Prime Minister made a strong political speech. I thought he was rather truculent in dealing with the political aspects of the question he was debating. When, however, he reached the point where he wanted the help of the country in relieving him of his pledges, he was most conciliatory. It shows how clever the Prime Minister is. He appealed to our better judgment; he appealed to all of us to vote favourably to relieve the government. I could not help but call to mind a couple of passages in the book entitled "The Unknown Country", recently written by Mr. Bruce Hutchison, a gentleman who is not at all unfriendly to the Prime Minister. He sizes up the Prime Minister's character at page 93 as follows:
The Prime Minister, the egoist and autocrat as Mr. Dafoe calls him, is not merely the first among equals, not just the chief minister. He is the boss.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
That is intended to be complimentary, and it is. I think it is true of the Prime Minister. He is the boss over there, and in a measure he is the boss of all of us.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about over here?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, you too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend would not think that I was just the office boy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not even suggested it. I am merely showing the Prime Minister what his own friend is saying about him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can give my hon. friend several more extracts by the same author.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Here is one that is rather mixed; it is complimentary and it sheds some light on the Prime Minister's character. At page 96 the author said:
He is a highly complicated and finely spun creature, half mystic, reading his Bible-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that wrong?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; that
is quite right. I used to do it myself, but I have not had the time to do it for a long time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought my
hon. friend must have given its reading up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quote:
-praying daily, believing devoutly in the human soul's immortality-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Anything wrong about that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I ask the
Prime Minister to listen to this. Perhaps he will agree with it.
-half ruthless and selfish politician, who can slit an enemy's political throat with a single expert motion of the wrist and without changing expression.
I do not think anyone will ever put me in a book. Certainly I would not want anyone to say that about me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
only way to treat certain classes of enemies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps it is. "Ruthless"-the Prime Minister admits it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend is going to take Mr. Bruce Hutchison as authority for my character, I shall be glad to give him lots of recommendations by Mr. Bruce Hutchison. I am ready to abide by Mr. Hutchison's decision.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think he is a friendly critic.


An hon. MEMBER:: On that same page he says the Prime Minister is a great man.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Certainly
he does. I have not the time to read it all, but I hope hon. members will read this book. Perhaps I have been a little facetious, but I want to be serious for a minute. The Prime Minister's whole position, as indicated by his speeches and his requests, ignores the principle that the safety of the state is paramount in war time and that pledges given long anterior to the happening of a given event must and should give way before the realities of an occasion such as that with which the nation is faced to-day. That is the factor which should override everything. The time for parliament to act is when that situation presents itself. We may disagree as to whether the time has arrived.
I have been greatly interested the last day or two in reading what has occurred in Great Britain with respect to India. Anybody who has read Mr. Churchill's speeches in days gone by before he formed his national government must know that in season and out of season he combated from first to last the proposal to give self-government to India. He was the bulwark of the forces that opposed dominion status, if I recall correctly, and yet without any mandate from anybody save and except the situation -which has grown out of the necessities of the war-I am not questioning his decision; I do not know enough about it to say whether it is wise or not-it is contemplated now to give India at least dominion status, perhaps something more, as part of this war effort. Did he pause to hold a plebiscite?
The Prime Minister said that the government must have full power. I agree absolutely. No government could undertake to carry on this war without full power. That is axiomatic; that is fundamental. The Prime Minister limited his powers by his own action, and of course he has to be released. He should have full power. No one will deny that proposal for one moment. We may differ only in the method of giving him that full power. We say that the people's elected representatives can do it under our constitutional practice, under the powers delegated to us. The Prime Minister says that that is not good enough. Let us give him full power to conduct an all-out war effort by all means, even if we do differ about the method by which that is to be attained.
I have one other brief observation which perhaps would have come in better in the early part of my remarks. If this bill is not altered, if it is not restricted to a specific case of one plebiscite, I say that we shall

874	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
cast responsible government out of the window and substitute therefor the principle of government by plebiscite.
The Prime Minister expressed great concern as to public opinion outside Canada, particularly in Britain and the United States, with regard to the government's war effort. I say to him that he may well be concerned about public opinion concerning the government's war effort, not in respect of the things that have been done, because most peoples think we have done well and I think so too, but in respect of the self-imposed limitation on our war effort. That is what the Prime Minister is concerned about, or he would never have adverted to it in the course of his speech yesterday. He knows as I know, and as I read in the United States press, that the fact that this government has not full power to do any and everything in relation to the war has called forth a good deal of adverse criticism. I have seen it. In the United Kingdom they wonder why we have not full powers of mobilization. They are too polite to say so publicly. They would say publicly, they do say publicly, that it is none of their business, and they refuse to be drawn into a discussion over it. Nevertheless they are wondering about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are they wondering about Australia too?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, but conditions are a little different there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And about
South Africa, too, and Northern Ireland?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let me say to my right hon. friend in respect of Australia that if the Australian people were to-day to decide this question, does he doubt what they would decide when every man in Australia has been called to the colours for the defence of his country? If that defence lies beyond the seas, they will be sent there. With respect to South Africa, I think we should be careful what we say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Be careful what you say about any of them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hold this view, that if it were not for one man South Africa would 'be neutral in this war. That is my view. That, however, is not very germane to what I have to say.*
I now urge the government to put this plebiscite through just as quickly as possible by means of a bill in redrafted form. I think the government should submit to the house at some stage-I presume it should be when the special committee reports-the regulations so

that those of us who are not on the special committee may be accorded an opportunity to review them before they become law.


Norman Alexander McLarty: There will be opportunity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a good undertaking, unequivocal. I also think that those parts which are in the nature of legislation should be incorporated in the legislation itself. Those parts which are not in the nature of legislation, those parts which are instructive and those parts which are interpretative, need not be in the form of legislation.
I am not going to detain the house further. I am going to ask the government to withdraw the bill. But if they will not do that, we have the unequivocal undertaking of the Prime Minister that the question to be submitted to the people will be put in the bill, that the bill will be limited to one plebiscite, this proposed plebiscite and this plebiscite only, and that when this plebiscite is over, this bill ceases to be the law.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, during the long weeks of debate in which we have indulged it has been difficult at times to be sure just what are the questions at issue, and there has been so much of almost irrelevant talk and so much of what appears to be a failure to see what are the relevant issues that the whole matter has been somewhat confusing.
It seems to me that there are three main matters which probably it would be fitting for me to touch upon in the short time at my disposal. The first is the question of a plebiscite. I am not sure that I entirely concur in the views of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) with respect to plebiscites. As a matter of fact the plebiscite is a device which is only being tried. It has been experimented with considerably in various parts of the world, but I am not sure that what we know concerning the success or failure of attempts in other lands is sufficiently definite to justify us in drawing any very clear conclusions. But this I think all of us desiring to preserve democracy must grant, that democracy is passing through testing fires. Times are changed; events happen fast; news travels speedily, and opinions change rapidly. Any government, particularly in a democracy, should keep in contact with the will of the governed, for governments must govern in accordance with the will of the governed. How any government in such hectic times as these can keep in contact with the will of the governed over a period1 of four full years without recourse to some such device as a plebiscite, no member of the

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Blackmore
opposition has succeeded in making clear to me. It would seem, therefore, that perhaps the plebiscite might be tried. We may find in it an instrument which will assist us greatly in carrying on a democracy.
There are, however, certain conditions which we must take care to see applied. In the first place, I would say that the subject of a plebiscite needs to be rather simple. The wording of the question submitted must also be very clear, and the question itself should be of such a nature that its meaning is not in doubt. Also there should be a thorough education of the people with respect to the whole matter concerning which the plebiscite is being submitted. Then there should be a number of safeguards thrown around the plebiscite to avoid the creeping in of abuses.
So much having been said regarding plebiscites in general, let us turn to the bill before us. This bill in its present form, as I see it, has three main defects. In the first place, it fails to prescribe the length of its own life, and this defect has been laboured by several speakers. Second, it fails to provide for making clear the meaning and significance of the question which is to be put before the people. This also has been dealt with more or less by various speakers. Then, the bill neglects to provide for such adequate education of the people as would enable them completely to apprehend and understand the reason for the plebiscite and the significance of the vote, either yes or no, with respect to the plebiscite.
May I deal with the matter of the length of life of the plebiscite. As the wording in the bill appears-as I think the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out-there is no automatic limitation of the life of the bill; one would say that this is to be a plebiscite bill in general, is to go on the statute books for an indefinite period of time, and is to be a measure under which any administration at any time could hold a plebiscite on any subject whatsoever. The ihon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) reflected upon that situation, and several other speakers have spoken about it. I will grant -that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) specifically stated that the bill was not intended to last long. He said, as reported in Hansard, page 822.
The intention, however, is that the bill should be for one plebiscite only, and that the plebiscite when taken, shall have reference to only one question. That question has -already been made clear to the members of the house and the public, but I will take occasion at once to bring again to -the attention of the house -its exact wording.
Which, by the way, he never did.
44561-56)


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes. The hon. member has not read the whole speech.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, it is just as clear as mud. The -members of the Prime Minister's own cabinet would not agree, I am sure, as to the meaning of the bill.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Oh, yes. The Prime Minister stated it specifically.


Mr. FAIR:: What does it mean?


John Horne Blackmore: My hon. friend must have a different meaning of "specifically," much different from the -one I used when I taught school.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Just the dictionary meaning.


John Horne Blackmore: May I turn to tihe bill itself, in opposition to what the Prime Minister said? In clause 3 it reads as follows:
(1)	The governor i-n council may by proclamation order the taking of a plebiscite under the provisions of this act.
It does not say whether that is to be in 1942 or in 1952.
(2)	The proclamation shall state fully the question to be submitted to the voters at the plebiscite i-n the same words and form as ift will appear on the ballot papers to be used at the plebiscite.
So far as I can find from a perusal of the bill, there is nothing more specific and definite than those words to limit the life of this bill. Suppose the bill were enacted in its present form, and the Prime Minister, after having -given the house the assurance which I have just read, should die, or should fall ill-


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Don't be
morbid 1


John Horne Blackmore: -or should for some reason choose to leave public life, we would have nothing whatever to guarantee that the promise he gave there would be kept by his successor as long as the bill remains in the form in which it now appears.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The pledge there is given in the name, not of the Prime Minister only, but of the government. The hon. member will find all members of the government wholly reliable.


John Horne Blackmore: We are obtaining
some assurances, Mr. Speaker, as we go forward. If the bill remained in its present form and a new administration came in-


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Which is very likely.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Don't be
optimistic!
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Blackmore


John Horne Blackmore: -a new government, such as a Conservative government, there would be nothing whatsoever to bind the new administration but the Prime Minister's few words. I believe we are perfectly safe in saying that the bill as it is must be changed, otherwise there is no legal protection for the Canadian people against any one of several abuses which might creep in as a result of the application of the bill.
As regards the meaning of the plebiscite, the Prime Minister has contended that the meaning is clear. I maintain that, as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) pointed out the other day, this plebiscite is being used throughout Canada as meaning either of two things. It may mean that if one votes "yes", one brings in conscription, or it may mean that he insists that the Prime Minister shall continue without conscription. The plebiscite could be interpreted as meaning no conscription, just as easily as it could be interpreted as meaning conscription.
There is another difficulty which I think I can show some cause for fearing. I turn to page 823 of Hansard and read a passage from the Prime Minister's own speech yesterday. He said:
As I have said, the purpose is to give the government-I put iit in general terms-a perfectly free hand to deal with all matters affecting the war in the manner which, in its judgment, is most in the national interest.
If the Prime Minister's remarks concerning the life of the bill are to be taken as affecting the interpretation of the bill, surely his remarks as to the significance of the bill can likewise be taken as a modifying clause of the meaning of this plebiscite. May I direct the attention of hon. members to another passage of his speech, which they will find on page 826 of Hansard:
This is the issue: Is the government of Canada, in time of war, to have .freedom to take whatever action it thinks most advisable with respect to the furtherance of Canada's war effort?
In that passage, the plebiscite is not particularly limited to the raising of men for overseas service. Let us now turn to page 827 of Hansard, and read:
. . . I feel very strongly the time has come when that limitation should be removed-
The Prime Minister there is talking of the power to conscript for overseas service.
-and when the government should be given the utmost freedom to deal with any phase of the war effort as it thinks best subject always to its responsibility to parliament.

I turn now to page 833 and read the last passage which I shall read in this connection:
In the presentation of the plebiscite to the electorate the desire of the administration to possess complete freedom of action will of course receive the vigorous and wholehearted support of all members of the government. It will, I hope, receive the support of every member of parliament, and will, I believe, receive the support of the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister was there quoting from his speech of January 26, on page 51 of Hansard.
I believe there are sufficient statements there to make it quite clear that this plebiscite can be interpreted to free the government in respect of >far more matters than the raising of men by conscription for overseas service. Some people may say, has the government not all this power under the National Resources Mobilization Act? The government has. But when we remember some of the things that this government has attempted to do under the excuse that they were advantageous to Canada's war effort, one will not hesitate to conclude that there are some things which the rank and file of the people should not interpret as being involved in that act. I refer to the iniquitous recommendations of the Sirois commission. Imagine that, with the statements which are in that speech to give meaning to this plebiscite, the people all over Canada voted "yes"; and the government then declared that the implementing of the report of the Sirois commission was essential to the war effort of Canada; then it would have the mandate of the whole people of Canada to go over the heads of the provinces and implement the recommendations of that report. People may disagree as to the implementing of that report, but I have an idea that when the smoke has cleared away and people realize more fully what that report means, they will certainly not be as much in favour of it as many people have seen fit to be up to the present.
There has been a most dangerous attempt on the part of the government to invade provincial taxation fields, and to do so with the most callous disregard for the commitments, obligations and responsibilities of the provinces. The rebuff which they received in connection with the Sirois report made them a little more cautious, but imagine with what impunity they would go forward if they were backed by a plebiscite such as that upon which we are now going to vote, with the Prime Minister's remarks to give colour to the interpretation of that plebiscite. The wording of the plebiscite should be far more specific and its significance should be far more unmistakable.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Blackmore
The bill should provide for an edequate educational campaign. Upon reading the bill it will be noticed that there is in it no provision whatsoever for the education of the people. Long ago it was said:
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Especially is it necessary for the people of a democracy to know the truth. Throughout this dominion the truth has been withheld, has been garbled, has been distorted in a way that ought to make the public men of Canada for the past several generations hang their heads in shame. To-day we are reaping some of the harvest that was so plentifully sown by the men who distorted the truth. The people must have the truth; otherwise how can they vote intelligently? For example, in many provinces and in many parts of many provinces there is a complete failure to understand this racial problem which goes to the very heart of Canada. There is failure to sympathize with and appreciate the point of view of Canadians who were raised to speak French. As a result, there is bitterness which there never should be and which would be removed if the full truth were known. This bill should provide for educating the people of Canada from coast to coast concerning the races that live in Canada, their numbers, their needs, their preferences and their history. A full account should be given, without reservation, of the shameful appeals that have been made in election campaigns to Canadians who speak French, when men have stooped to sordidness which will forever constitute a stain upon them, to misinform, to inspire with apprehension and anxiety innocent people.
I was much enlightened by two speeches from the other side of the house, one by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. McDonald) and the other by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot). Many hearing them felt that those hon. members were, shall I say, indelicate in having brought out into the open details of the reprehensible behaviour of which Canadians who speak French had been the victims. I never have been able to find any more successful way of adjusting differences between people than the simple method of telling the truth, finding out just why there is misunderstanding. I fail to see why the application of the same principle would not greatly improve conditions in Canada. Here we are, two great races of people, as it were, those whose blood is drawn from French people and those whose blood is drawn from Anglo-Saxons. I think there are no finer peoples in the world to-day than those two races. I find the French-Canadian people
whom I know in every way admirable and estimable, and I see no reason why there should be any prejudice. We are, as it were, two races married. We have a glimpse of ourselves in the midst of a great stream of national life that flows out of a remote past, for which we have no responsibility, and flows into an indefinite future for which we are in some measure responsible. We are similar to a man and wife in a home, with children. We do not wish to break up the home. We do not wish to have a separation or a divorce. If we did wish anything like that, surely a time of such peril as this is not the time to bring the matter to a head. We must come to understand each other. There is only one way in which that can be done; that is, by hearing the facts, sordid as they may be. I can now understand what I have heard men say in this chamber during the four or five years of my sojourn here. I can understand why they have spoken in this way, when I look at the speeches of those two men to whom I have referred. I marvel that the speeches have not been even more extreme.
There should be provision in this bill for an educational campaign from coast to coast, to teach the Canadian people the facts concerning those who dwell with them in this great national household of Canada. The Prime Minister, as reported at page 832 of Hansard, mentioned his desire for an educational campaign, in these words:
I should hope that the campaign would be made lain educational campaign which would help to impress upon the people the necessity of giving the government full power in time of war. I think it can be made that. My hon. friend and I are to-day agreed that the government ought to have this power and we are agreed for the same reason. And the leaders of the other parties are agreed.
But the Prime Minister did not touch what in my judgment is the festering sore which is threatening to break out in eruption, resulting in several kinds of disorder in this country, of which none of us desires even to think. Why not insert in the bill provision for education? While I am referring to this point, may I say that I have never been able to see why the two major parties did not decide to make the last election campaign an educational campaign also. I do not believe the leaders of those parties should be forgiven by generations to come for their neglect to attend to the important matter of educating the people to the truths for which they stand.
When war was declared, in September, 1939, I rose in my place and urged the people concerned that they should go into Quebec
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Blackmore

and tell the truth; everywhere tell the truth. Is it to be conceived that it could not have been made known to every Canadian at that time how colossal was the preparation that Hitler had made, how terrible a foe was Italy, how charged with dynamic explosiveness was the whole Japanese situation? How much more wisely and sanely, and with how much better feeling all would have gone forward if such had been done. Instead of that, what had we? We had an appeal to the basest prejudices, with every attempt to becloud the issues and distort the facts, I presume in every constituency throughout this country. So I say that in this bill there should be specific clauses providing for the setting aside of an adequate fund to provide for the education of the people.
May I turn now from a consideration of the bill to a brief consideration of the Prime Minister's speech. I agree with the leader of the opposition; I do not know whether the Prime Minister has ever delivered a greater speech in his history. It was great, I thought, in every respect. At the same time, he said things which I think should be pointed out. He spoke of the false position in which the government finds itself. If the government finds itself in a false position, the government has only itself to blame.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: There may be smiles, but the more deeply we probe into that statement, the more truth we shall find in it. As reported on page 827 of Hansard, the Prime Minister makes one remark which is worthy of our attention:
I would say further, that no-t only is it putting the government in a false position to have its hands tied at this time, in the manner indicated, and that it is putting parliament in a false position, but it is also putting Canada in a false position, before all countries of the world, including her allies in the war.
Then at page 833 there is another passage which I believe is worthy of note:
I do not believe it will be possible for an administration to carry on, in a time like this, with the sense it ought to have of complete authority without being given complete power. It should not he put perpetually in a false position just because of some obligation necessary at an earlier time, but which, as I explained in the debate on the address, is having an effect quite different from that originally intended in its relation to the state of affairs that exists at the present moment.
I said a moment ago that the government had only itself to thank. There was no reason why the government or any member of the Liberal party should have committed himself on the question of conscription. The leader of the opposition has repeatedly declared that
fMr. Blackmore.]
he did not make conscription, an issue in his constituency. Why did any of the Liberals need to make it an issue? I would say that any grown man over the age of twenty-five, equipped *with even a smattering of the facts, should have been able to foresee that we were preparing to enter, or that we were already entered into a conflict which would become so terrible as to render it necessary that the government in control of the country should have the freest hand possible. In the light of that fact can anyone possibly excuse a man for committing himself on any platform in the dominion on the question of conscription? Why was it done? Simply to get some sordid votes; that is all.


Charles Edward Johnston: Political
advantage and sculduggery.


John Horne Blackmore: That is all. That was a noble object!-simply to beat somebody else.


Mr. GRANT:: What did you run for?


John Horne Blackmore: If my hon. friend will come around to see me some time, it may take a little time to tell him, but he will be quite satisfied. In respect of what I ran for I have a record I can be proud of-which is a good deal more thau my hon. friend can say.
It may be said that the Liberals feared they would lose the election. It seems to me I have heard that the British people were left unprepared because the government of the day feared the loss of an election. With that in mind they risked the loss of an empire, and the welfare of 600,000,000 people, rather than lose the election.


Mr. HANSELL:: There is no answer to
that one.


John Horne Blackmore: The Conservatives
were not in any way disposed to make the conscription question an issue. They had made it abundantly clear that they did not wish to fight on that issue. That fact removes from under the feet of the Liberals the last vestige of excuse for making conscription an issue. Why did not both parties go out sensibly, sanely, patriotically and with public spirit and say to everyone, "Now, folks, we are in a most terrible war; heaven only knows what may happen in the next four years; we do not dare to tell you."


Mr. WOOD:: Offer them 125 a month.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are entitled to it, too.


Charles Edward Johnston: Gems of
wisdom.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Church


John Horne Blackmore: Remarks like that
help a person to understand why the Liberals took their stand on conscription, and why they lacked vision. Was it because the people in power lacked vision, or did they just lack courage?	.
The Prime Minister expressed great anxiety and concern about the fact that the government now has its hands tied. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the people of Canada vote "no," where will the government be? Its hands will be worse than tied; they will be manacled. Yes; they will be hanging alongside the government's sides, and the whole thing will be inside a plaster-of-paris cast.


Jean-François Pouliot: It will be the best solution for the defence of Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall leave my hon. friend to explain himself at length some time. If the government wishes to be sure of freeing its hands, then the last thing it ought to have is a plebiscite.
To avoid the possibility of defeat of the plebiscite, which may possibly come about, I am going to make a suggestion, and then I shall have completed my remarks. The people of Canada, from coast to coast, those who are informed and those who think, have begun to realize that there is some sort of dead-hand lying over the whole war effort of this country. I am neither minimizing nor disparaging what the government has done. But it is certain that in a country like Canada, with such bountiful resources, but which at the end of this length of time still has as many unemployed, there is something radically wrong-and simply passing a plebiscite on conscription is not going to set it right. What the people want is that the full, majestic, magnificent strength of this dominion shall be mobilized. People now realize that the devices being used by the government cannot achieve that end, and they are looking for leadership along some new line which will achieve it.
I would suggest to the government even at this late stage that along with the plebiscite in which they are asking if the people are willing that the hands of the government be freed to conscript men for overseas service, if needs be, they ask the further question as to whether the people would be willing to leave the government free so that it could adopt any new financial system which it might find' to be advantageous.
I am going to suggest that the last words in the resolution passed by the legislature of Alberta be given careful attention. Those words were:
The people should be given an opportunity of approving or disapproving not only of the
conscription of man-power but also the complete mobilization of all our material and financial resources through the effective control and issue of all currency and credit by the dominion government.
This was a laughing matter perhaps four years ago. As the days pass, however, the danger that this country will be defeated is increasing, because this matter of money is being neglected. It is by no means a laughing matter to-day, nor can it be taken in any degree lightly. This bill should be redrafted so as to indicate the limit of its life, and to provide for adequate education; and the plebiscite should be revised so as to make its meaning and significance explicit. It should also contain facilities to enable the people to express their opinions on monetary systems.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, while I have been a member of the House of Commons I have found it to be a place of very much kindness. While I am here I hope I shall never be charged with showing any lack of ordinary Christian charity toward those who sit round me or hon. gentlemen opposite. To-day we are passing through a great battle of nerves, and the affairs of state place a heavy strain on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the cabinet and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson).
The government, however, should not be afraid to tell the people when they have made a mistake because, as I have said on former occasions, the people do not expect their leaders to be gods. There has never been a question in Canada concerning which all people have ever been united, and that arises because of our population and other matters. The plebiscite question is one on which different views are held.
Before discussing the plebiscite in detail, may I compliment Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker and the splendid Clerk of the House upon the very kind and efficient way in which they have handled the proceedings of the house in these critical times. They have done their duty as they have seen it, and I believe they have won the admiration and respect of the members and the people of Canada. Tme it is that sometimes I did not agree with them, but the fact that I say so, does not make it so.
Next December 9 it will have been twenty-one years since I was first elected to this house. As I say I have found that the house has discussed all these questions in a calm way. There is no necessity for anybody getting rattled at the present time over the questions that are before us. I am one of the opposition, but I believe the opposition

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Church
has given the government pretty good independent support in this war. That is what we were sent here for, to offer criticism, on behalf of the man on the street, on behalf of the people in our constituencies and the people of Canada generally. They may not like the way in which the war is going on, but it is no disparagement of the Prime Minister, of any of his ministers or of the government of the day if criticism is offered.
I believe in the parliamentary system. They do not believe in it in Germany and Japan, but in this country we have a parliamentary system in a democracy. There cannot be a democracy without a free press. That is why I have urged the government to abolish the censorship as they have done in England. If that had been done, we would have avoided many of the mistakes which have been made in the giving of news and information to the people.
I think I have known the Prime Minister longer than anyone else in this house, and I have never had anything but respect for him while he has held his present position. I also have a great deal of admiration for the leader of the opposition. This party was not disgraced in the last election because it polled nearly one-half of the total vote in the country. Our leader was defeated, and the hon. member for York-Sunbury took up this work and has done well. He has not been very well, and his conduct of this job has won him the respect and admiration, not only of his colleagues over here but, I believe, on all sides of the house. He has won considerable public estimation in the country. He is not here at present this evening. Probably if he were, I would not be saying this, but it is true.
As I said in the first speech I made when this present parliament was opened in 1940, and when the government were being criticized, after all is said and done the people have elected them. They won 178 seats and they are the government of the day in a democracy. The people put them there. As I said at that time, they were a government of Canadians in Canada. Aside from the question of man-power, which they have misjudged, I think they have done a great deal of good useful work. Their efforts so far have been considerable, and Canada's war effort is very creditable in many ways, but they have not done one-half of what they should have done nor enough for a total war effort. They misjudged things in connection with man-power, in connection with the European and Pacific situation, in connection with the disarmament movement before the war. The members of the opposi-

tion have endeavoured to give the government good and independent support on the whole, for a total effort. The government has very little about which to complain except on this one question of the plebiscite, which never should have been started.
This is an involved question and one cannot expect everybody to agree. We are not all constituted the same. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I am a little shortsighted.
I can speak without notes for forty mintues, but I have a few short quotations I should like to make. I did not want to bring in a lot of books, so I have these quotations tjqpewritten in my notes.
One thing has been shown since the start of the war-the tremendous popularity of the monarchy. We had evidence of this during the visit of the king and queen in May, 1939, and again, last December on the king's birthday. The king and queen have been most magnificent in giving leadership in these critical war days. As I say, one of the cardinal things we have noticed in Canada is the popularity of the monarchy, but with that we have seen the decay of parliament and the decline of the House of Commons. This is evidenced by the mistakes that have been made in allowing our functions to be usurped. We come here for a few days; then the doors are locked and we go home. Our colleagues in another place have been here for four or five hours since last June. Why can we not follow the example of London and W ashington and have a joint session of the two houses, as I urged here in 1939 and 1940? This is what should be done during the course of this greatest war in the history of the world. But nothing has been done. Some very good talent is to be found in the other part of this building, men of great experience and ability, but no use has been made of their services in connection with wTar work. That is one of the mistakes which have been made.
I do not mean any disparagement when I say that the Prime Minister has been conducting this war as a Liberal war. The Asquith government went out of office in England during the last war for the same reason. The conduct of this war is much more difficult than was the conduct of the great war, and I think the Prime Minister would have been well advised to have hearkened to the hand-writing on the wall. Instead of conducting the war in the way in which it has been conducted, we should have had a man like Lord Beaverbrook or

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Church
used the great talents and ability of Viscount Bennett in the war cabinet in London. We all know the wonderful work that Lord Beaverbrook has done in production in the old land. He was bom at Maple in York, although he is considered to be a Nova Scotian. I was sorry that he did not accompany the Prime Minister of Great Britain when he came here. Lord Beaverbrook is a remarkable man and a great Canadian. Considerable could be done in London by way of better managing of our part of this war. This is not the battle of the Atlantic; it is the battle of the seven seas, and there must be a new management of our own war effort. This has been shown by results in the Pacific. When the Right Hon. Mr. Menzies addressed this chamber last June he pointed this out. The government knew about it; they could see the hand-writing on the wall, but nothing was done till too late, and the disaster there shocked the world.
The government are a board of directors appointed by the people to conduct the war. The responsibility is theirs. It is a difficult job, and I sometimes fear for the health of some of the leaders. The strain they undergo ' is one of the tragedies of this game, and I hope it will not injure their health.
On the second reading the principle of the bill is considered. This is set out in the splendid textbook I hold in my hand, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. I remember reading what the assistant clerk, now the clerk of the British House of Commons said about this textbook. Standing order 75, at page 216, deals with the second reading. I should like to quote citation 753, which reads:
The second reading of a bill is that stage when it is proper to enter into a discussion and propose a motion relative to the principle of the measure.
Citation 755 reads:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
For that reason I oppose the principle of this bill. I should like to point out the cause and effect of this bill. What has been the cause for this sudden departure from parliamentary institutions and all we have had here for over one hundred years? As I said the other day, a civil war was fought in England
over the very principle involved in this plebiscite, the control of the executive by parliament. In my opinion the cause for this plebiscite was simply a smoke-screen, a bit of shadow-boxing to cover up the mistakes which have been made about man-power since the war started and the disaster in the Pacific. It is simply a smoke-screen to cover the Pacific and Singapore. Who proposed this plebiscite? Who asked for it? What will it cost? It will do nothing whatever to beat Hitler.
I was very much disappointed with the speech which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), who is not here to-night, made in this house on February 4. The government can spend all this money like water on a useless plebiscite and on the league but has not a dollar to pay the poor dependents, the wives and children of the soldiers, many of whom are suffering from lack of a bonus, from lack of fuel and all that kind of thing. Yet the Minister of Finance brings down a page and a half of an order in council to give a cost of living bonus to civil servants who are staying at home and not going to the war. In addition to their $175 a month, they are being given a war bonus, and we cannot get a dollar for the dependents of the soldiers, or free fares for the soldiers on the railways, or a national insurance scheme. History will score this disgraceful treatment of our forces.
This plebiscite will not amount to a thing in beating Hitler. The effect of it will be like the effect of all commissions and committees in this country-to kill a lot of time, and delay and hinder and prevent this House of Commons from fulfilling the function for which it was created and urging upon the government an increased war effort. This is no time for such a reference to the people, and the plebiscite has already done a lot of harm in this country. I was sorry to hear some of the language used in this house to-night by two most honoured and respected leaders. I know that it was done in the heat of debate and that the battle of nerves is pretty hard1 on both of them, but I was sorry to see it.
If Hitler comes here-and he is not far from our shores now-he will take no plebiscite. What he will do will be to hang the plebiscite and all connected with it on a sour apple tree, like John Brown's body. That is what he will do with it, and Hitler and Japan are not, 1 repeat, far from our shores now. When the members representing British Columbia constituencies urged the government to do something to solve the Japanese question out there, why, on the same plebiscite reasoning, did the government not hold a plebiscite on the question of moving these Japanese-twenty-
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Church

eight or thirty thousand at the maximum and twenty thousand at the minimum-away from the coast province? It did not hold a plebiscite on that because the members would not stand for it.
This vote will probably be taken in May or June, which are going to be two of the most fateful months the world has ever seen. In those months will be decided the fate of civilization, perhaps for the next two hundred years. It will not be home defence that will count then. The decisive battles will be fought in the Atlantic and the Pacific, in Asia, and Europe, and the Mediterranean. In the Pacific we have lost the command of the sea and you cannot keep up with the Japanese who are moving around to these various islands in the Pacific-no, not if you had one million men, as I quoted Mr. Churchill early in the session. * They have command of the air, aeroplane carriers, all the deadly instruments of war and have battered the fleets of Britain and the United States in the Pacific. The danger to the people of this country is great. Our fate will be decided, not by home defence, but in the Pacific; in the battle of the Atlantic, which is really a misnomer because it should be called the battle of the seven seas; and in the Mediterranean and on the Russo-German front, whether we like it or not. They can go like a circus from place to place with sea and air supremacy.
You cannot conduct this war with a plebiscite. It must be conducted by the House of Commons. Under the constitution you must either support the government or oppose it, and you cannot change the constitution by a plebiscite. The members of the House of Commons have not only the right but the duty to come here and report what they find wrong with our war effort and in connection with our armed forces and economic effort, and I say the critics have been right. It is their duty to point out what is wrong.
On the second reading of the bill you can discuss the principle, but you cannot discuss the bill in detail clause by clause. The interpretation clause provides that "during a plebiscite" means the period between the date of the proclamation ordering the plebiscite issued under section 3 of this act, and the close of the poll on polling day. That is what the definition says about the time of the plebiscite. But if Hitler comes to this country first, what are you going to do about it? He will not hold any plebiscite. He did not hold one in Belgium or Holland or France and these other countries he has conquered.

By clause 3 of the bill it is provided that the governor-in-council "may" by proclamation order the taking of a plebiscite. The "may" is enabling, permissive; it is not mandatory. The governor in council has control of the plebiscite election. But if Hitler or the Japanese come here, there will be no vote at all, because the govemor-in-council can call it off then, or at any time.
Section 5 of the bill provides that any person who shall have voted at the plebiscite shall not be exempted from military training. That smacks of conscription, and it is conscription. There is no such provision in the statute which Attorney-General Conant brought down in the Ontario legislature for soldier votes abroad and at home. He has given a free and untrammelled right of way to all the soldiers overseas and all those wearing the service uniform to vote at the next election. He is not taking away from them by conscriptive methods anything at all as we are, their right to apply for exemption, postponement of training, and all that kind of thing.
Another section of the bill provides that members of the forces, irrespective of age, shall be entitled to vote on the plebiscite. Another section deals with the manner of voting by a qualfied voter whose name is not on the official list of voters. Anybody who knows anything about elections, especially in districts where there is a foreign-born population, knows that this will lead to a lot of telegraphing of votes. Persons will be going round to various booths and voting if their names are not on the lists. I remember an election once where the candidate got 178 votes at one poll, but the "8" was struck off, so that this candidate got only 17 votes. I do not like to see that kind of thing, and voting by those not on the lists.
When the seed planted by this plebiscite has reached its maturity, what will the harvest be? It will not fill the farmers' barns with crops. It will empty their pockets of their money, and their taxes will pay for it. All the harvest will be that the people will not know what they are voting on, and when the votes are counted up, half the ballots will be spoiled because the people did not know what they were voting on. It puts me in mind of the battle of Dundee. I see the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) sitting over there with his colleague. They know about the battle of Dundee where no one knew who won it. Some say we won; some say they won; some say nobody won- and that is how it will be when the plebiscite ballots are counted.

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Church
It is not right to place private government members of parliament in the position in which this plebiscite places them, against their own convictions. We are being asked to relieve the government of responsibility for policy by submitting to the people a plebiscite asking them to vote "yes" or "no." It is parliament's duty to frame policy; and if we are not here for that, the government had better lock the doors of this house and send the members home for good.
A "yes" vote is simply a vote of entire confidence in the government. I do not know whether I shall Vote or not. My constituents have the right to vote the way they see fit, and it is not for me to advise or interfere with them. I am not going to be a party to any snap or humbug vote or anything in the nature of a vote when the people do not know what they are voting for. They do not know what will happen if they vote "yes", or what will happen if they vote "no"; they are bewildered. To the average voter the thing is a genuine Chinese puzzle without any issue or sense. What is going to be the result of it? What was the cause of it?
Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that conscription is not an issue in this vote, that the issue is a pledge of the government. Let me remind him that Mr. Roosevelt, the President of the United States, gave a pledge in the last election that there would never be a contingent of troops sent out of the country if he were returned; he would stop at measures just short of war and they would keep out of war. What happened? Last June he carried the army vote by a majority of only one. The isolationists were so strong that the majority for the repeal of the Neutrality Act was only fourteen votes. Things looked pretty dark for the administration until Pearl Harbour changed the whole situation and the whole nation was united. Are we going to wait to take a plebiscite until we have a second Pearl Harbour in Victoria or Vancouver; because, as Prime Minister Churchill told the House of Commons in London publicly the other day-it was reported in Hansard of January 28 there-for the next year or two, until the allies get command of the sea in the Pacific again, we must expect these visits from the enemy in the Pacific, and for Japan to roam all over. Are we to wait until then before we do anything?
So much for the bill. My leader is quite correct in what he says about the plebiscite as being contrary to the constitution. I have here an authority for my statement-and I shall quote it in a moment-because this .matter has been up in the house before. This
particular plebiscite method of doing business is subversive of our constitution, which is derived from that of Great Britain. It takes away the collective responsibility of the cabinet of the day and cabinet solidarity. Instead of the public being approached through a plebiscite, the issue should have been embodied in a government measure in the house here, and if rejected, the government falls. I believe the house would have released the government from any pledge in this connection. Why are they worrying about pledges? I do not know. As the late J. Israel Tarte said, elections are not won with prayers, and platforms are made to get in on, not to stand on-and so are pledges.
I might point out that the Prime Minister, when replying to me in 1937 concerning a national register, gave a. pledge in this house that the government would never again send overseas an expeditionary force; he said that the danger to Canada was minor in degree and secondary in origin-which statement is shown to have been incorrect. In addition, what did he do in the Atlantic conference, which binds Canada whether we like it or not? At the last imperial conference, in 1937, when we refused to give anything to the Singapore base, or support an empire shipping policy, although it meant more to Canada than almost any other country in the way of protection in the Pacific, he said, "We have no commitments. Parliament will decide." How was the pledge carried out?
Take the Hyde Park and Ogdensburg agreements. We have a so-called joint board of defence, which is more board than defence; in fact, it seems to be all board. That body has made recommendations of expenditures running to two or three hundred million dollars- all over the head of parliament, although we are in session. In the Hyde Park agreement are pledges binding on Canada, also the giving away of bases from Newfoundland to British Guiana and elsewhere. In return for fifty ships, some of which have been returned, and others of which are very little use, we gave away parts of our empire. This binds Canada, although it was not a party to it.
At the Atlantic conference they decided that we would be at war if war came to the United States and Japan; Britain would join the United States, and that bound Canada. We have never yet had a defence or foreign policy. We have never yet had a foreign policy except a policy of day to day and hand to mouth. These commitments which are being made between the governments of Great Britain and the United States bind Canada, because when Britain is at war, Canada is at war.
8S4
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Church

I do not agree with the head of that high-sounding Department of National War Services, which with all its circuitous ways should have been abolished long ago, when he allows Mr. Brockington to make such statements in literature as these: "King George did not declare war for us; we declared war for him."
When war broke out on September 3, 1939, although it took ten days for this parliament to declare war, Hitler did not wait for our declaration of war of September 10; he sank the Athenia on September 3, with a hundred and thirty Canadians and other Britishers on board. It needed' no declaration from us to become involved, because when Britain is at war, Canada is at war also. Another instance of a pledge which has not been carried out is the Ogdensburg agreement.
Then, more recently, how was war declared on Japan? I had asked the Prime Minister on June 12 last whether, during the parliamentary recess, there was to be any further appeasement of Japan. He said he was not an appeaser, he was a conciliator. Under the appeasement policy Japan received from us five million bushels of grain. One of those who spoke in connection with that particular subject when Japan declared war on December 7 was the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), who for many years supported pacifist doctrines and resisted even the moderate votes which were proposed for armaments in 1937 and 1938. He gave a long interview last December to the press about Japan, in which, according to him, Japan could not last any time at all. His prediction has proved to be incorrect and his facts out of date or judgment.
I come to this point. During the time we were giving away the Ottawa valley and other power rights, allowing increases in telephone rates, and when large vested interests were threatening municipal control over streets, it was proposed to adopt in Canada the municipal policy of submitting to the ratepayers at every general election great national questions in peace time. In this connection I would refer to what was said by the late honoured Secretary of State, Mr. Rinfret, in corroboration of what our leader has said. A report of the discussion will be found in Hansard of March 17, 1939, page 2186. The constitutional aspects of the matter were debated; and it was pointed out, in relation to an act of June 13, 1898, respecting the prohibition of importation and manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, that a vote was all right; but there was no legislation, although Sir Wilfrid Laurier had pledged legislation.
I recall an occasion when Sir Wilfrid, who was very popular with those who came to interview

him, saw that one member of a delegation did not have a chair, and he would not sit down himself but got the delegate a chair. His name was the Reverend Mr. Huxtable, who addressed him as "Sir Wilfrid." Sir Wilfrid said, "Don't call me Sir Wilfrid; I am plain Mr. Laurier, a democrat to the hilt." But a few months afterwards Sir Wilfrid forgot his pledge and took a knighthood-quite rightly and quite properly; he was held in very affectionate regard and respect by the people not only of his own province but of others.
The Secretary of State pointed out what the government did after the vote to which I have referred was held. What they did was to place the Canada Temperance Act on the statute books of a later day. It provided for local referendums, and under that act the Secretary of State of that day said that some two hundred separate local votes were held throughout the country and in Ontario and Manitoba. The late Minister of Justice, the very able and respected minister whom we all miss so much this session, opposed plebiscites on March 17, 1939, and he gave some reasons for not applying it to federal matters at general elections. He said it could not be applied in an emergency. I told my leader some years ago on referendums that if war came, I would never see Mr. General Election become commander in chief of the British forces; I would never with my vote allow Mr. General Election to become admiral of the British fleet, because before Mr. General Election could open his ballot boxes, the enemy would sail and fly up the St. Lawrence and bomb the citadel at Quebec and this building and the Chateau Laurier hotel. I am1 still of that opinion. My present leader is absolutely correct in saying that the plebiscite is contrary to the constitution and that the matter should be dealt with by way of a special act and not a general act, because under the Dominion Elections Act you cannot submit a question, and that is why they have to bring in this bill. It will have to go to the senate, and I shall be very much surprised if it does not get a rough reception in another place.
In 1939 the then Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret), pointed out the time this referendum will take. There are no standing lists in Ottawa; it will take seven or eight weeks to prepare them. I think it was Mr. Devlin in the home rule debate who said the House of Commons was at its best when it was frank. We want some frankness from the government as to the management of this war-the better management. It is the duty of this house to be frank and to criticize the measures placed before it, because criticism is a tonic to government action. This government has refused

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Church
to do anything in regard to some of the main measures but was urged on by public opinion. It was so in regard to man-power and many articles of munitions and in many other ways.
I believe that the man on the street has a right to be heard here in criticism. In my opinion the criticism by the opposition has been very moderate. The man in the street has a right to 'be heard and the only way he can be heard is through a member of parliament, because the private member is the connecting link between the government of the day and the electorate; if he ceases to function, parliamentary government is at an end. If the press is to be muzzled by censors on this plebiscite then the public is not going to learn the facts.
I for one do not intend to fall into this plebiscite trap. I know something about the conduct of elections and the mysterious and devious ways sometimes used to win them, and I am opposed to it. I am not going to be manoeuvred into a wrong position by the jokers in this bill, and there are many of them. I am not going to be told to put a cross "yes" or "no" to any' such question, or to be a party to such tomfoolery. I have seen too much manipulation of ballot boxes in my day, and I never had much organization, no more than any of the other Toronto members; we have had very little organization except in a voluntary way.
The people do not believe in this plebiscite. The Prime Minister evidently looks on it as a straight vote of confidence; if you vote "yes," you vote confidence. Mr. Churchill asked for a vote of confidence, but he asked for it in the right way, in the House of Commons under the constitution, and that is the way it should be done here.
The government may get a surprise in the ballot boxes. With regard to the referendum or plebiscite-it is a distinction without a difference, a play on words-I believe the people are not going to be fooled. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time as to an important matter like this, especially when it means life or death with the enemy close to our shores.
In 1937 I predicted the war over Japan on a vote for the Tokyo legation, and my late leader Viscount Bennett said I represented a large body of public opinion in this country that did not like the way in which Canada had been for many years a drag on the mother country. As I said in that debate, one of our chief errors was the refusal to cooperate with the motherland in connection with Singapore and the shipping conference.
Britain at that time had two thousand fewer ships than in 1914 and five million more mouths to feed.
Conscription was not an issue in the last election. I never heard of it; in fact I had a difference of opinion with one of our leaders about this question. I did not speak in the last election except in my own constituency, and no leader is going to tie me down. I am not a yes-man or a nodder, or a follow your leader; your leader is your policy; I never have been and do not intend to be now. It is a great mistake for the present Prime Minister to ask his followers to agree with him on this and no government member should be placed in this position.
The Prime Minister asked the question and gave the answer. I have the answer here. The question was "to release the government" from its pledge. I am in favour of striking out all the words after "release the government". If he will have the question read: "Are you in favour of releasing the government?" to be answered by a straight "yes" or "no", the people would understand. If the Prime Minister is appealing to Caesar, let him appeal and be bound by the answer.
If there were a little more humour in the house, tempers would not be so frayed or rattled. I think this plebiscite is unsportsmanlike. I was at a rugby game not long ago, where there were some five thousand people; one side began to yell, "We don't like the ref, we don't like the ref", meaning the referee. We do not like the referendum. The men are all right. I look on this vote as war according to Hollywood and not war according to Hitler. The people are not going to be fooled by any such farce. I have seen voters in the voting booths decline to vote on such similar questions because they do not like to be humbugged and did not understand them. The average voter knows as much as members of the House of Commons and the cabinet; he does not need any meetings to tell him how to vote. I think it is an insult to ask members of parliament to go to the constituencies and pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the government on such a proposal. I do not intend to do it; my constituents can vote themselves as they see fit. I do not know whether I am going to vote myself on the question, because I took a stand in this house for rearmament all along the line when it was very unpopular and not fashionable, and it is very unwise now for some hon. members to throw cheap sneers at those who in season and out of season, for years before the war, urged a larger army, navy and air force.
8S6
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Church

The German barbarians with their mechanized hordes have destroyed the whole of Europe, and they are not far from our shores now. I do not think you are going to fool any of the people at the ballot box by this sort of thing. Before the ballot boxes can be opened the enemy may arrive on the Pacific or the Atlantic coast, with the tramping of feet, the loud speaker, the cracking of the whip, the sergeant-major, the gestajpo, and all that sort of thing. He may decide the matter long before the ballot boxes are opened. I like the bon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght); he has been very kind to everyone, but I do not like some of his arguments about the ballot on the plebiscite. Neither do I like those of his young friend, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford), who sits beside him. I think it would be far better if in future he used a little more temperate language with regard to those who do not agree with him. I hope it may never be said of me that in my twenty-one years in this house I ever failed to show a lack of ordinary Christian charity toward my political opponents.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I have not so far availed myself of the opportunity to speak on this plebiscite issue. Much has been said about it since the opening of parliament some weeks ago. I think I can agree with some of those who have already eulogized the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on his speech yesterday. I believe he is a past master at saying a great deal, yet so speaking as to avoid any possibility of being pinned down. Sometimes I think he is rather like a jack rabbit; just when you think you have him, he is not there. I quite agree with those who have expressed the opinion that yesterday he excelled himself in oratory and forcefulness, and as he was speaking I felt that if only he had made that speech during the early part of this session, instead of waiting until yesterday, he might have saved a great deal of time. Sometimes, however, first impressions are best, and I believe that as we seriously analyse the Prime Minister's speech of yesterday we may discover some things that perhaps he overlooked or some things that perhaps he did not very brilliantly cover up.
Yesterday the right hon. gentleman said that the question he was going to ask the public to answer in this plebiscite was 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?
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I think this question is so ambiguous that it is not capable of

even- one interpretation. Some hon. members have said that it is capable of many interpretations, but I cannot interpret it at all. Already under the mobilization act the government has perfect freedom; it is not restricted at all in its method of raising men for military service. That has nothing at all to do with the restriction. Where the government is restricted is in respect of where the men who are raised should fight the war. I want to point that out, because we have been told here, and the Prime Minister made the statement himself, that this plebiscite has nothing whatever to do with conscription. Yet all our arguments have centred around whether or not the government could con-soript men for overseas service. Therefore the government is not restricted as to the methods of raising men for military service, but rather as to the purpose for which the men who are raised for military service should be used. Are they going to be raised to serve at home, or are they going to be raised to serve abroad? But that is not contained in the question which is to be submitted to the people.	So I say, Mr. Speaker, that the question is so very ambiguous that personally I do not know what it does mean. I should like to ask the Prime Minister what it means. He says that it does not mean the conscription of men for overseas service; yet throughout his speech yesterday	he continually mentioned the
matter of overseas service.
When the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday the question that was to be submitted to the people, he went on to say this, as it appears at page 823 of Hansard:
As I said, at the time of speaking on the address, the question is very simple in its language and meaning and is a straightforward one.
Yet a few lines further down, in almost the next breath, he went on to say:
My purpose this afternoon is not so much to attempt ito add to what has been said but rather, if possible, to clear away some of the confusion that has arisen out of the discussion that has already taken place.
If the question we have been debating is couched in language so straightforward that there can be no doubt about it, how is it that confusion exists? That is one point at least on which the Prime Minister did not cover up so brilliantly as he is accustomed to do.
Let me go a step further. Yesterday the Prime Minister took time out to mention specifically that there is a tremendous difference between a legal obligation and a moral obligation. I wonder whether there was any

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hansell
moral obligation in 1940, in going to the people with a promise of restriction. I wonder whether there was any moral obligation in going to the country and saying, "We want j'ou to return us to power so that we can prosecute the war so far but no farther." If ever there was a moral obligation, it was in 1940, when the Prime Minister went to the country; and the moral obligation was to tell the people that he was going to do anything under God's heaven to win the war. But I think he went to the country with only one moral obligation in mind, and that was to win the election.
Later on in the Prime Minister's speech he makes special reference to the fact that both Conservative and Liberal parties, the two major parties of Canada, going to the country in 1940, were in agreement on the matter of voluntary enlistment and1 compulsory enlistment; that is, the matter of conscription.
Then he deals with the pledge that was made to the country. Let me read the Prime Minister's words:
The pledge was given later, direct to the people, to the electorate themselves. It was a pledge made between the leaders of two great political parties in Canada and the electorate of this country in regard to the most solemn question that could have been put before them at that particular time.
The Prime Minister specifically states that this was the most solemn pledge that could be given the country. I repeat-the most solemn pledge. The most solemn pledge any man could give the country in a time of war is the pledge to win the war at all costs. That is the most solemn pledge which could be given.
But what was the pledge that was considered1 so solemn? It was: We will prosecute this war in order to win the war at home; but we will not prosecute the war to the very limit of our capacity to win it abroad. That is the sort of pledge the Prime Minister regards as a solemn one.


Charles Edward Johnston: Shame on him!


Ernest George Hansell: Some of us could say a few things about solemn pledges. Here again, talking about public men in public positions, and how they must regard their pledges as solemn and irrevocable, the Prime Minister goes on to say:
We intend to be ever mindful of this, and that if we have given a solemn pledge to them we intend to carry out that pledge.
That sounds good; it sounds beautiful. But might I ask the Prime Minister about the solemn pledge he made a few years ago to end unemployment?


Jean-François Pouliot: Bennett made that pledge.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps he did. That was a solemn pledge. Did the Prime Minister keep it?


Jean-François Pouliot: Bennett did not.


Ernest George Hansell: When the Prime Minister found, as year after year went by, that he could not keep that solemn pledge, did he go to the country and ask to be released from it?


An hon. MEMBER:: He never made it.


Ernest George Hansell: I believe I remember reading in Maclean's magazine about October, 1935, where the Prime Minister was going to ease the burden of debt on agriculture. Did he ease the burden of debt? Did he go to the country and ask to be released from that solemn promise? In this house in the last year or two we have been reminded that the farmers in Saskatchewan were promised dollar wheat. The government was not able to give the farmers dollar wheat. Was that a solemn pledge? Has the government asked release from that pledge?
Then I would remind the house once again of that most solemn pledge respecting the issue of currency and credit in terms of public need. We know what the Prime Minister said in 1935; these words have almost been worn threadbare:
Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury once in control will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government, and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament is idle and futile.
The Prime Minister talks about keeping solemn pledges. Here is one he has described as a sacred responsibility. I do not know what the broad meaning of the word "sacred" is, but I have before me the meaning as it appears in a dictionary I secured in the parliamentary library. The meaning of "sacred" as outlined here is "consecrated, or held dear to a deity; dedicated or reserved or appropriated to some person or purpose; made holy by religious issue; hallowed."
Let us think of that. Here is a sacred responsibility, one which is consecrated1 or held dear to a deity. Did the Prime Minister keep that most sacred obligation? Has he restored to the government the right to issue currency and credit in terms of public need?
I should like to read something he said on the night of the election, when Mr. Bennett's government was swept out and Mr. King's government was swept in. In the light of what has gone on since, in the light of
Plebiscite Act

Mr. Hansell

the fact that millions of people have been, on relief, let me read what the Prime Minister said:
In the new era which dawns to-day the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, be carried on as never before.


Charles Edward Johnston: Amen!


Ernest George Hansell: I continue to quote:
Poverty and adversity, want and misery are the enemies which Liberalism will seek to oanish from our land. They have Iain in wait at the gate of every Canadian home during the past five years, and their menacing mien has served to destroy the souls as well as the minds and bodies of an ever-increasing number of men, women and children in our land. We take up at once-
No time must be lost.
-as our supreme task the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in the land of abundance, discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe, and to gain for individual lives and for the nation as a whole that health and peace and sweet content which is the rightful heritage of all.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I am trying to find some link between the hon. member's speech, the extracts he has been reading, and the bill before the house. I do not believe he is speaking to the question now before us.


Ernest George Hansell: I have been talking about the most solemn pledges concerning which the Prime Minister spoke yesterday.


Thomas Vien: The question before the house has to do with a plebiscite.


Ernest George Hansell: 1 am the last one who would want to break any of the rules of this house. If, however, you had been in the chair this afternoon you would have heard members here and members there talk their way around the world and half way to the moon and still be permitted to go on and speak. I want you to rule, Mr. Speaker, but I am saying that if there ever was a sacred obligation or pledge which the Prime Minister has ever made and which should have been kept-if it could not be kept, he should have submitted the matter to the people by way of a plebiscite-it was the pledge to end suffering and want in the midst of plenty.


Robert Fair: He did not want to do it.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) says that he did not want to do it; it did not suit his political convenience. Imagine the Prime Minister going to the country in those days with a plebiscite asking that he be released from
[Mr. Hansell.1
his obligation to end poverty when he found he could not do it. That would not have suited his political convenience, but this plebiscite does. May I go on with the Prime Minister's speech of yesterday. He is reported on page 826 of Hansard as follows:
It is because of this we want to have perfect freedom of action as an administration, to have all the right to do what is in the public interest at the time the situation may demand iit, and we feel we ought to be given this freedom as quickly as possible. The reason we want it, as I have stated already, is to be free to act in the manner which will best serve the interests of the people of Canada to serve in the manner that will make Canada's war effort the most effective.
That is self-admission that in 1940, when he made the commitment, it was a commitment which restricted him from putting forth Canada's greatest possible war effort. Are we to understand that the government went to this country in a time of war, in 1940, with the attitude that they did not want to be free to prosecute this war to the limit of their ability? In effect the Prime Minister says that they went to the country in 1940 with no desire to be free to carry on the war in the most effective manner. The only conclusion one can come to for the government permitting its hands to be tied is that it considered it was a very good piece of political expediency. I cannot comprehend it; it is beyond imagination, beyond all reason to believe that the government should consult the people as to whether they desire it to take such action as will win the war. That is the line of argument the Prime Minister used. He goes on:
Hon. members have been talking about conscription, about no conscription and the like. That is no-t the issue in this plebiscite. This is the issue: Is the government of Canada, in time of war, to have freedom to take whatever action it thinks most advisable with respect to the furtherance of Canada's war effort?
The Prime Minister informed the house that the question to be submitted to the people is not whether or not they want conscription, but whether or not they want the government to do all they can do to win the war. I am not going through my constituency doffing a cap with bells on, looking like a fool, asking my constituents to vote whether or not they want to win the war. Then the Prime Minister goes on to talk about the position in which the government finds itself in the eyes of the world.
He said:
First of all, the government is being put in an entirely wrong position before the people of this country and before the world just because we have not that full power.
8S9

Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hansell
Who put them in that position except he himself in 1940? Again on page 827:
. . . but it is also putting Canada in a false position, before all countries of the world, including her allies in the war.
Who put Canada in that position but themselves in 1940? I quote from page 826: Nevertheless as long as that commitment is there we are being represented to the people of our own and other countries as a government unwilling to go the lengths other countries are willing to go, even should necessity for so doing become clearly manifest. That is a false position and a very wrong one in which to have the government placed.
Moreover, the present position in regard to the one commitment places the parliament of Canada, as well, in a false position.
Who put the government in that position but they themselves in 1940? If I have not misjudged what the Prime Minister says, it is that parliament is being put in a false position. I quote from page 827:
The very minute the subject were brought up, one hon. member after another, if it suited his purpose, would rise in his place in the house and say, "I cannot discuss this question, because the government is committed not even to raise it." So long as that commitment is there, no matter how the war may develop, there can be no discussion of the merits of the question of compulsory service for overseas. I say that that is putting parliament in a wrong position before the people of Canada.
It seems to me that the Prime Minister must think it is a Liberal parliament. Is he going to say that nobody in the house can talk about conscription until the government raises the issue? That is the way it reads here. I have thought for some time that this is a Liberal parliament. That is the position. Then he says:
. . . the enemy will construe this commitment as a limitation on the war effort of Canada.
What is responsible for that? I wonder how they interpreted that commitment in Germany in 1940?


An hon. MEMBER:: They never thought of that.


Ernest George Hansell: Surely they must have thought of it. The Prime Minister is a brilliant enough man; no one will deny that. No one will say that the Prime Minister did not foresee how people would regard this, even in years to come.


Charles Edward Johnston: His party came first; that is all.


Ernest George Hansell: That is exactly the argument I am making, that it was political expediency. On page 828, the Prime Minister is reported as having said:
Talk about being courageous, I do not see anything courageous about that. Courage comes when you face the people, not when you run away from them.
A little more courage in 1940 would have been wise. It would have been better if he had faced the country with the statement, not "I will not put in conscription," but modified a little to read, "I see no need for conscription now, but if the need ever comes, I shall be the first to put it in." That would have been courageous indeed.
The Prime Minister answered the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) to the effect that he could not state what he would do in respect of conscription as a result of the plebiscite vote, and he could not state what he would do several months hence. But he did state in 1940 what he could not do and would not do- and that condition has lasted for two years. The Prime Minister said, as reported at page 831 of Hansard of yesterday:
I mention these things because they help to illustrate how impossible it is for .the government to give a decision here and now as to what it is going to do next September or. October or November or December, or in 1943 or 1944.
I am not pressing that he should tell us that.
I am simply pointing out that he did tell the country in 1940 what he could not do and would not do. He went to the country then on a negative commitment, and I say and have always thought that it was one of the most foolish things for a statesman to do to go to the country and say: I am promising you that if you elect me I will not do something, but will go into office with my hands tied. That may have been a shrewd piece of political expediency, but I do not think I will apologize to the Prime Minister when I say that it was not statesmanlike.
The Prime Minister went on in his speech to talk about the New Order. It is true that he wound up his speech with a great finale. It is worth putting on Hansard twice. The Prime Minister said, as reported at page 833 of Hansard:
A great deal has been said in different parts of the world and in our own country, about the New Order that is to come when this war is over. I have said on two or three occasions, I feel it very deeply', that unless that New Order emerges and asserts itself before the war is over we shall see very litle of New Order when the war is over.
Might I just make some reference to that? The Prime Minister makes that statement in the sense that he wants to preserve democracy, wants the people's will to govern. He says so here, as reported at page 834 of yesterday's Hansard:
They will insist on public honour in the transaction of public business, and they will insist above everything else that the government that is carrying on the affairs of their country shall be responsive to the will of the people and see that it is administering that will and no other.
Plebiscite Act-Mr. Hansell

Will the Prime Minister tell me to-night if it is the will of the Canadian people to pay an old age pension of only $20 a month? Will he tell me that it is the will of the people that agriculture should get the deal it is getting and that soldiers' widows should get the deal they are getting? The government knows the will of the people on these things.
The Prime Minister goes on to say, as reported at page 834 of yesterday's Hansard-.
There has been very little said in the recent past about moral obligations on the part of nations,^ but unless I am greatly mistaken there is nothing that is going to mean as much in the future of mankind. If we are going to rule out of our public life the honour of public men and of parliament-
And so forth, and so on, and so on, and so on. Yes, there are sacred obligations, and statesmen should keep their commitments. I believe in that. But there are sacred' obligations to feed and clothe and make our people happy and comfortable. That is the will of the people, but that is not being done to-day.
Speaking of the post-war period, the Prime Minister goes on to say, as reported at page 835 of Hansard:
We are going to honour their rights as we seek to honour our own conscience, so we shall be laying the foundation of the kind of order that will be enduring through the years to come.
Then I say, let us start with the building of that foundation now by looking after these war widows and dependents, and let us look after the aged now, for these are sacred and solemn obligations.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the arguments that have been made in the debate on the address and in this debate with respect to the plebiscite, pro and con, and also to the arguments for and against conscription. I am firmly convinced that before the plebiscite is put to the people, the first step we should take is this: We should have a resolution moved in this House of Commons by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) asking the members of this house to relieve the Prime Minister of his pledge. Most of the members who have spoken said that they were in favour of the plebiscite, but they have not said what they are going to do. They have not said whether they will back it up, whether they will ask their people to vote for it or whether they themselves' will actually vote for it or not. To ask the people first, instead of this House of Commons, is putting the cart before the horse. I am not in favour of the plebiscite; I think the Prime Minister can get the release he requires from the members of this House of Commons; and before he submits the plebiscite to the people of the country,

he should secure his release from the members of the House of Commons. If he gets release there, he certainly will be much freer to act than he is now; and if some unforeseen terrible thing shojild happen to prevent the taking of the plebiscite, he will at least have the consent of the members of the House of Commons to relieve him of his obligations and permit him to act. If the Prime Minister will take this course and ask the members of the House of Commons to give him the release he seeks, I for one will vote and call on my fellow members to vote to relieve him of his obligation with respect to that one specific thing.
Motion (Mr. McLarty) agreed to and bill read the second time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, I would move that we return to government notices of motion so that the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) may introduce his motion for the special committee to which this bill is to be referred.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house having reverted to the order for government notices of motions.
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State) moved the following resolution:
That a special committee consisting of Messrs. Brunelle, Gastleden, Black (Yukon), Emmerson, Fair, Hazen, Jean, White, MeCuaiig, McLarty, McNiven, Pottier, Ross (Calgary East), Tur-geon and Weir be appointed to consider Bill No. 10, "An Act respecting the taking of a plebiscite in every electoral district in Canada and the taking of the votes of such plebiscite of Canadian service voters stationed within and without Canada," and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time.
Mr. STIRLING:: Mr. Speaker, I draw
your attention to the fact that the motion as moved is not the same as the wording which appears on the order paper.


Norman Alexander McLarty: There are two names
amended, I believe, by consent. Both of them happen to be members of my hon. friend's party. The name of Mr. Black (Yukon) was inserted in the place of Mr. Diefenbaker and that of Mr. White in place of Mr. Graydon. I understood that that was definitely by arrangement.


Grote Stirling: Being consented to by
whom?


Norman Alexander McLarty: By consent of the whip of the Conservative party.

Plebiscite Act-Special Committee


Jean-François Pouliot: I have something to say
on this. I can start now, or we may call it eleven o'clock, if you wish, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Vien: The motion
is to create a committee to which the bill will be referred.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, and I have just a
few words to say on it. Will you please call it eleven o'clock?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my hon. friend that the government is anxious, as I believe all hon. members are, that we should proceed as rapidly as possible with this legislation. The second reading of the bill has passed; a committee has been now named as a special committee to consider it; it has been agreed upon by all parties; and if this resolution could be passed to-night, the bill will be referred to-night to the special committee, which will have to-morrow and Saturday to go over the various clauses of the bill, and may be able to report to the house on Monday. In that event the bill could be through on Monday, and pass its third reading here. It would be unfortunate, I think, if we lost the advantage of the extra day to the committee to consider the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: I cannot refuse anything
to my leader except in a matter of this importance. I was about to speak on the second reading, but a colleague was talking to me, and I had thought that the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) was to speak longer than he did. But I do not intend to speak at length, and if I am the only speaker on this matter the bill could be referred to-morrow afternoon to the committee.
May I say further that this is the most important bill which has been brought before the house for a long time. I appreciate what has been done, but it is impossible for me to refrain from saying what I have to say. I shall try to be just as brief as possible. It is not ill-will, it is not a bad disposition, but the matter is so serious that I cannot do otherwise. Besides this, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said that his intention was not to take advantage of the plebiscite right away to impose conscription, that it might be a matter of a few months, even a year, or more than that. I do not wish to be disobliging, but I should be remiss in my duty if I did not say what I have to say upon the matter. I usually refuse nothing, either to my colleagues here or to my confreres at
the bar. But this matter is of the utmost importance; we must think deeply upon it, and we have the right to express our views.
I do not wish to stand in the way, but since the bill is to be referred in the first place not to the committee of the whole house, but to a special committee which will report to the committee of the whole, it is my intention to say what I have to say in order that the members of the special committee which will study the bill will consider it, or throw it in the wastepaper basket. Mr. Speaker, will you please call it eleven o'clock.


Thomas Vien: The question is not on the merits of the bill; the question is on the expediency of creating a committee to which the bill may be referred. Therefore, if any hon. member desires to speak on the motion which is now before the house, namely the expediency of creating a committee to which the bill may be referred, now is the time. Or, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is one minute to eleven-o'clock, but I will continue. I started at five minutes to eleven. Sir, this is exactly the same case as when the motion was made for the reference of certain matters to the civil service committee. There was a debate on that, and hon. members expressed their views. This is not a long bill, it is a short bill. But it is based'-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I rise to a point of order. Perhaps my hon. friend will excuse me. I should like to ask Your Honour whether a motion to refer a bill to committee is debatable under the rules of the house. I would1 cite standing order 38.


Thomas Vien: Does any hon. member desire to speak on the point of order?


Jean-François Pouliot: Sir, it is now eleven o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not yet.


Thomas Vien: Standing order 38 enumerates the debatable questions. The motion to refer a bill to a committee is not therein enumerated. Therefore I declare that the motion is not debatable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 10 be referred to the special committee which is now created.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Privilege-Mr. Pouliot
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 27, 1942