PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT REFERENCE TO LETTER IN OTTAWA &quot;CITIZEN&quot; FROM JAMES E. BROOKS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, as a private Liberal
member and a French Canadian from the province of Quebec it is my duty to rise to a question of privilege in respect of a letter published by the Ottawa Citizen in its issue of February 18. The letter is headed "Shadow of Vichy in Canada," and is addressed to the editor of the Citizen in these words:
Winston Churchill says that the lowest point in the war was when the French folded up. French politicians were responsible. Can it happen in Canada that the representatives of French-Canadian political remote control can cause the same thing here?
Think it over. Vichy is still represented at Ottawa. French Canada controls 65 seats in the House of Commons. There are only 245. 'Nuff said.
James E. Brooks Montreal, February 16, 1942.
This James E. Brooks is the president of the James E. Brooks Cotton company, of Montreal. His business address is 614 St. James street, Montreal; his home address is Sea Island Beach, Georgia. The records of the customs offices will show that he deals in cotton imported from United States and Brazilian firms which are enemy controlled.
Does he not know the names Esteve Brothers, or J. Kahn and Company, of Campanera? The money he pays for this cotton goes to Italy or Germany, because it is cotton that was originally bought for and on account of German and Italian principals. He gets it cheap and sells it to well-known Canadian textile firms, who are not averse to exploiting their French-Canadian employees.
The proof of this could be found in the files of the customs department. If a return were tabled of Canadian firms which trade with the enemy, no French-Canadian firm would be found in that list; only good "patriots" who are shouting for conscription. And no French Canadian is on the board of directors of any such company.
Brooks purchased time over American radio stations, as an American of the south, and probably a member of the Ku Klux Klan, to carry on a political campaign during the last by-election in Welland and York South, in favour of Arthur Meighen. It is time that these "patriots"-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

Plebiscite Act-Report oj Committee


Mr. POULIOT:: -who trade with the enemy for profit, should be shown up when they want to conscript the good farmers' sons. I wonder if that dirty Brooks is not well acquainted with the fellow who sent an electoral death threat and an electoral silver bullet to Arthur Meighen during the last by-election.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Have we
to listen to tirades like that?



PLEBISCITE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State) presented the second report of the special committee appointed to consider 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, as follows:
Your committee has held four sittings. Representations were made to it on behalf of the residents of the Yellowknife administrative district in the Northwest Territories. Careful consideration was given to Bill No. 10, "The Dominion Plebiscite Act 1942" and your committee have agreed to report the said bill with amendments.
A reprint of the bill, as amended, has been ordered.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in announcing on Friday evening the business for to-day, I did not mention the possibility of the house considering the plebiscite bill. I did refer to the matter on the previous evening. I then stated that if the bill were given its second reading that evening it was possible that we might be in a position to consider it on Monday when it would have been reported back to committee of the whole.
The bill has just been reported back to committee of the whole and, as the leader of the opposition and all hon. members are aware, the government is anxious to proceed with it as quickly as possible. Under the circumstances I was going to ask if hon. members would give their consent to proceeding with discussion of the bill in committee of the whole to-day. If we are to proceed a motion will, of course, be required, because the rule is that there must be forty-eight hours' notice after a bill is reported back from any standing or special committee before it can be considered. There is another rule, however, which provides that in respect of an important matter consent may be obtained and a measure proceeded with.
If the house would give its consent I should like to move:
That 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, be considered in committee of the whole this day and that standing order 21 be suspended in relation thereto.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to delay the passage of the bill. I believe everything that could be said against it has been said more than once. I am content therefore to accede to this order of business, if there is an understanding that we will not hurry over the bill and the regulations. Frankly I have not been able to read all the regulations. They are most voluminous, and there are at least one or two which to my mind are contentious. If there is an undertaking that it will not be forced through to-day I should be quite agreeable. What would be the alternative? What other business would we go on with if we did not take up this bill? Would we take the agriculture resolutions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not the agriculture resolutions.
MLr. HANSON (York-Sunbury): Not to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not to-day. There are two resolutions with respect to trade with south American republics; in fact there are three. I doubt if they would take very long. There is also a resolution to be moved by the Minister of Pensions and National Health which might possibly come up this evening. I mentioned that we might wish to move into committee of supply to call one or two items. I have no hesitation in giving my hon. friend the assurance he has asked for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With
respect to the trade agreements, my colleague, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield), probably knows more about these from the standpoint of business than anyone in this house. He was desirous of speaking but he has gone to bed with a bad cold and oannot be in the chamber to-day. If some means could be afforded whereby this could be [DOT]held over, say until to-morrow or the next day, we would be most grateful. In the meantime I shall be glad to facilitate matters as much as I can.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no immediate haste with regard to the trade agreements.


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: I would ask the Prime Minister not to proceed with this bill to-day, because many hon. members who are interested in it
922	COMMONS
Plebiscite Act-Report of Committee
are not here. They were under the impression that we were not going to proceed with this measure to-day. Besides, I should like to have time to read the provisions of the bill, which are voluminous.


Mr. BRADETTE:: The members should be here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that the bill may take some little time in committee and I think there will be ample opportunity for hon. members to discuss the matters they would wish to discuss on the bill. If we proceeded with it this afternoon there would be an opportunity afforded also this evening for discussion. As to having discussion begin now in committee of the whole, I hope my hon. friend will not press his objection. If we find as we proceed that we are going too rapidly, the committee will I am sure agree not to conclude discussion at the present time but to permit a general discussion later on.


Maxime Raymond: If the Prime Minister will agree that section 4 will not be passed I am agreeable.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, speaking on this motion, it was stated by the right hon. the Prime Minister that a certain entente had been arrived at between the allied countries regarding the conduct of this war. My privilege to-day is to offer a primeur to the house. I am sorry I have not the English translation of that word for the benefit of my hon. friends. What I have to offer is a magnificent letter which is a worthy preface to any discussion or debate on a bill like this. This letter was sent by ferry command by a prominent citizen of the metropolis of Canada, the city of Montreal, and it was received this morning in London by no less a person that the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Right Hon. Winston Churchill. Here is the letter which I hold in my hand and which I have the privilege to read to this hon. chamber:
Montreal, February 25, 1942. Mr. Prime Minister:
A citizen of the commonwealth, no matter how humble, always enjoys the right to communicate with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to give him his reflections and make known to him his thoughts. There are moments, rare it is true, when .the right becomes a duty. I think that, for the writer, that moment has arrived, sir.
Mr. Prime Minister, the citizen who writes is a Canadian of the French language, a loyal subject of the king of Canada faithful to the culture of his forebears devoted 'to the Franco-British union in Canada,


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The motion before the house is that Bill No. 10 be considered

in committee of the whole this day and that standing order 21 be suspended in relation thereto. I take it that the hon. member is speaking to the merits of the bill, and this could more properly be discussed in committee of the whole rather than at this time.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I may be allowed to read the letter as soon as the house goes into committee of the whole, then I have no objection. What I want to read pertains to the 'conduct of the war, and it is drafted in the finest English language. This is precisely the matter before us now.


Georges Parent: It would be in order for the hon. member to take that up when we get into committee of the whole. At the moment we are dealing with a motion for the suspension of standing order 21 in order that the plebiscite bill may be considered in committee of the whole this day. Perhaps the hon. member will wait until the bill gets into committee of the whole.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was not a matter of obstruction. I just wanted to place it before the house.


Georges Parent: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I was not able to hear distinctly whether the Prime Minister gave a commitment that this discussion would take place to-night rather than this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said that I thought we would be all afternoon on the bill as well as to-night. We could hold over any clauses which it was thought desirable to discuss later. I have already agreed to holding over clause 4 till to-night. We will not try to rush the bill through but would like to make what progress we can with the general consent of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: 1.	What is the total amount paid under the prairie farm income regulations?
2.	What has been the total cost of administration?
3.	What are the names and addresses of any additional persons hired as inspectors and supervisors for the administration of this bonus, and what was paid to each in (a) salary, (b) expenses?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	$6,668,909.14.
2.	$44,529.44.

Questions
3.	No additional persons hired. This work was carried out by the inspectors engaged in connection with the wheat acreage reduction and Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


UNPRODUCTIVE GAS AND OIL WELLS-STEEL PIPE
Mr. WINKLER:: Is there any regulation of any department of the government requiring that steel pipe in unproductive oil and gas wells be drawn for use in war purposes?


Mr. MICHAUD:: No.


GASOLINE RATIONING-DISABLED WAR VETERANS
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Wall the regulations rationing or limiting the use of gasoline give preference to crippled or partly disabled war veterans using for transportation vehicles requiring gasoline for motive power ?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Incapacitated citizens requiring the use of an automobile for the normal conduct of their business have been given special consideration and have been placed in category "C" of the gasoline rationing regulations. No special consideration has been given for incapacitated citizens using a ca-r for other than business purposes. Such cases will be dealt with on their merits.


ONTARIO HOG BONUS
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	How many hogs entitled 'to the bonus offered by the government of Ontario were marketed during the year 1941?
2.	What amount of money was paid to hog producers in Ontario by the provincial government as bonus during the year 1941?


Mr. GARDINER:: Information not available.
HIGHWAY ROUTES TO THE NORTH*


Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Has the government considered the setting up of a commission to study am inland route, north from Edmonton to the Yukon and Alaska?
2.	If so, ivhen will the government make some announcement in respect thereto?
3.	Has the government had any communications either by correspondence or otherwise, or representation, with the United States government, since May, 1940, in respect to a highway *through Canada to Alaska?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might answer this question orally. Answering the first question, as the house has been informed, the appropriate defence agencies of Canada and the United States have been and are giving close consideration to the problems of communication with Alaska. As to the second question, I may say that the reason I am answering the question orally is to say that the report that is made on the matter will likely be a military report and it is doubtful
if publicity can be given to it. I cannot give any assurance at the present time that publicity will be given to it; I would first have to see the report. The answer to the third question is yes.


NATIONAL RAILWAYS DINING CAR SERVICE- FRESH SEA FOODS
Mr. WHITE:: 1.	Are fresh sea foods always served on government-owned trains operating out of Halifax ?
2.	If not, why?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Yes; as available and according to season.
2.	See answer to question No, 1.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY
Mr. CASSELMAN:: 1.	Who are the present members of the Canadian section joint international board of engineers for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence power and navigation scheme?
2.	When were they appointed and what have each received eaeh year since 1938 in, (a) remuneration; (b) travelling expenses?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	It is presumed that the reference is to the "Canadian Temporary Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin Committee", presently dealing with the engineering features of the project, the members of which are: G. A. Lindsay, Department of Transport; T. H. Hogg, chairman, Ontario, Hydro-Electric Power Commission; O. O. Lefebvre, vicepresident, Quebec Streams Commission; J. E. Read, Department of External Affairs.
2.	The members of the committee were appointed by order in council October 23, 1940.
(a)	Remuneration: T. H. Hogg and O. O. Lefebvre received no remuneration for their services on this committee. Messrs. Lindsay and Read received no additional remuneration over and above their regular salaries.
(b)	Travelling expenses:	The following
travelling expenses were paid in connection with the work of the committee:
Name	1940-41	*1941-42G. A. Lindsay	,...$312 76	$1,174 33T. H. Hogg	
nil	nil0. 0. Lefebvre...,	.... 218 69	658 18J. E. Read	,... 11 35	470 38
* Up to February 15, 1942.


COARSE GRAINS
Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	What quantity of coarse grains was brought to Ontario from western Canada last year, under the preferential freight rate?
Questions

2.	What was the average price of such coarse grains (oats, rye and barley), in Winnipeg and in Toronto, last year?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Quantity of grain which was brought to Ontario from western Canada under freight policy which was carried out co-operatively with the Ontario Department of Agriculture and expired July 15, 1941, was as follows:
Bushels
Oats	 1,717,016
Barley	 888,690
Screenings	 301,108
Wheat	 248,259
Mixed Grain	 69,698
Rye	 33^599
3,258,370
2.	As the grain was purchased by private transaction no record is available as to the prices paid.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What was the total amount paid up to February 1, 1942, under the national unemployment insurance scheme by, (a) employees; (b) employers ?
2.	What was the total amount of benefits paid up to the aforesaid date to employees entitled to same?
3.	How many employees were paid the said benefits up to the aforesaid date?
4.	How many employees in Canada were contributing under the scheme as of February 1, 1942?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Contribution and revenue figures covering contributions by employers and employees including remittances from Post Office in February, 1942, covering January purchases of stamps are: (a).Employees (50-37%), $13,972,636.26;	(b) Employers (49-63%) $13,767,-
360.29; total $27,739,996.55; contributions from government, $5,547,999.31; interest earned to December 31, 1941, $105,890.48; grand total, $33,393,886.34.
2.	Nil.
3.	Nil.
4.	Up to February 1, 1942, approximately
2,300,000	books had been issued to persons working in insured employment.


ALASKA HIGHWAY COMMISSION
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What was the total cost of the British Columbia-Yukon-Alaska highway commission created by order in council P.C. 3252?
2.	What are the names and occupations of each of the members of the commission?

3.	What did each of these members receive by way of (a) salary and emoluments, (b) travelling and other expenses?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	$18,2S7.67.
2.	Honourable Charles Stewart, Chairman, International Joint Commission; Brigadier-General T. L. Tremblay, Department of National Defence; J. M. Wardle, Esq., Director, Surveys and Engineering Branch, Department of Mines and Resources; Arthur Dixon, Esq., Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works, province of British Columbia; J. W. Spencer, Esq., David Spencer Limited, Victoria, B.C.
3.	(a) Nil; (b) Hon. Charles Stewart, $1,864.85; Brigadier-General T. L. Tremblay, $782.20; J. M. Wardle, Esq., $1,336.48; Arthur Dixon, Esq., $1,026.45; J. W. Spencer, Esq., $1,087.30.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	What was the total amount of bonuses paid in 1940 to each of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act?
2.	What was the total amount of collections under that act in eaeh of the three prairie provinces?
3.	What was the total number of townships eligible for bonus under the act in each of these provinces?
4.	What was the total number of townships ineligible for bonus under the act in the said provinces ?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Alberta, $1,600,934.39; Saskatchewan, $7,434.424.27; Manitoba $S68,942.11.
2.	Alberta, $743,115.16; Saskatchewan,, $1,344,208.23; Manitoba, $333,453.13.
3.	Townships which applied for bonus and were eligible:-
Alberta 584; Saskatchewan, 1,183; Manitoba, 156.
4.	Townships which applied for bonus and were ineligible:-
Alberta, 218; Saskatchewan, 846, Manitoba, 144.


RURAL AND URBAN POPULATION
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What were the respective percentages of the rural and urban population in Canada as shown in the census of 1901, 1911, 1921, 1931 and 1941?
2.	What is Canada's rural population as shown in the census of 1941?
3.	What number are shown as urban in the said census?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: The following table answers questions 1, 2 and 3.

Precious Metals Marking Act
Canada Classified as to Rural and Urban, 1901, 1911, 1921, 1931
Census Year	Total	Rural	Urban1901	5.371,315	3,357.093	2,014,2221911	7,206,643	3,933,696	3,272,9471921	8,787,949	4,435,827	4,352,1221931	10,376,786	4,804,728	5,572,0581941	11,419,896*	Not yet available	Preliminary.


PAN-AMERICAN CONFERENCE
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Was Canada officially represented at the Pan-American conference held in Rio de Janeiro in January of this year?
2.	If so, what was the name or names of the official representative or representatives?
3.	If Canada was represented, were any commitments made?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	With what corporations, firms or individuals did the government enter into contracts for printing during the oalendar year 1941?
2.	Were such contracts let by tender in each
case?
3.	If not, upon what basis was the contract in each instance given?
4.	For what did each contract call, and what was the price?


DOLLAR-A-YEAR MEN
Mr. WHITE:: 1.	How many dollar-a-year men are serving the government of Canada?
2.	What are their names and addresses?
3.	What are their duties?
4.	What living allowance and other expenses do they receive in addition to the $1 a year?
5.	On what basis is such living allowance paid?


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE-GASOLINE
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	From what companies are oil and aviation gasoline for Royal Canadian Air Force training schools purchased?
2.	What is the general practice in fuelling the gasoline tanks in planes?
3.	Is it customary to overflow tanks and run gasoline on the ground?
4.	Is it customary to drain tanks after the plane has been used?
5.	Is gasoline below standard ever accepted?
6.	Is gasoline of any kind ever destroyed?
If so, how?	[DOT]


PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE AIRPORT
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	What was the total cost of the airport at Portage la Prairie, Manitoba?
2.	How much land was purchased in connection with this airport?
3.	From w'hom was this land purchased and at what price?
4.	What was the total cost of buildings and equipment?


ANCIENNE LORETTE AND ST. JOHN'S, QUE., AIRPORTS
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	How much land was purchased in connection with the development of airports at (a) Ancienne Lorette, Quebec; (b) St. John's, Quebec?
2.	From whom was the land purchased in each case, and at what price per acre?
3.	What was the total cost of each of these airports?
4.	What was the total cost of buildings and equipment at each of such airports?



MEASURE TO PROVIDE ACREAGE REDUCTION AND CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting wheat acreage reduction, to provide for the payment of certain sums to farmers in connection therewith, and for the administration of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I have frequently had occasion to call the attention of the government to the fact that while parliament was in session orders in council have been passed changing the statute laws of this country but I have never had an instance that was so coincident in point of time as the one to which I now desire to call attention, namely, the order in council P.C. 1372 passed on February 23, 1942. This order in council was passed under the War Measures Act and suspends the operation of subsection 4 of section 11A of the Precious Metals Marking Act for the duration of the war and six months thereafter.
Labour Conditions

Hon. members will recall that on the very day this order in council was passed under the War Measures Act this house gave second reading to a bill to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act, considered it in committee and then gave it third reading, and we were never told for a moment that a very much more important change in the law was being made under the authority of the War Measures Act by order in council.
I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce why as a matter of principle the government did not in these circumstances seek to suspend section 11A by act of parliament, which could have been passed! on February 23, rather than by order in council passed on that day. The provisions of section 11A, suspended, were not important, but they are very much more important than the provisions of the bill which will shortly become an act of parliament. I think this is treating parliament with contempt.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. E. McGARRY (Inverness-Richmond) :: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. According to press reports, hard rock miners are to be brought from Ontario gold mines to work in the Nova Scotia coal mines. Does the minister know that owing to the contemplated closing of No. 4 mine at Inverness many coal miners employed there will soon be thrown out of work?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of this question, and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) gave me notice of a similar one.
The Department of Labour has no knowledge whatsoever of the contemplated transfer of hard rock miners from northern Ontario to Cape Breton, but further inquiries will be made.	[DOT]


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I wish to address a further question to the Minister of Labour. In reply to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. McGarry) with reference to the transfer of men from Kirkland Lake to Nova Scotia, the minister indicated that inquiries would be made. I am not entirely satisfied with that answer, because the press dispatch referred to by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond

definitely sets out that five hundred men are being recruited in Kirkland Lake now to be shipped to Nova Scotia, presumably because there are vacancies in the coal mines of Nova Scotia. If this is allowed to continue for a few days the chances are that we shall have the Kirkland Lake problem transferred to a section of the country where there already exists a problem.


Mr. SLAGHT:: They would not stand the committee for industrial organization down there.


Clarence Gillis: There is no committee for industrial organization in Canada. My hon. friend merely demonstrates his ignorance of that question; that is all.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The hon. member doesn't know what he is talking about.


Clarence Gillis: The labour supply board is definitely set up for the purpose of regulating the labour supply for Canada, and I am wondering who has the authority to institute a transfer of men from one section of the country to the other without the sanction of the labour supply board.


Humphrey Mitchell: I myself would like to ask the hon. member a question. What is the labour supply board he is speaking of?


Clarence Gillis: The Minister of Labour is supposed to be chairman of the labour supply board, upon which are representatives of industry, the manufacturers' association, and labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say this to my
hon. friend: Don't believe all you read in the newspapers. When I made the statement that I had no knowledge of the organization of which the hon. member speaks, I meant that the Labour department has no knowledge of any contemplated transfer of miners from Kirkland. Lake to Cape Breton-none whatsoever.


Clarence Gillis: Has the Labour department
any jurisdiction?



UNEMPLOYED MINERS AT KIRKLAND LAKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the Minister of
Labour whether he has taken cognizance of a communication from the miners at Kirkland Lake who have not yet been taken back to work, asking to be transferred to other scenes of labour in Canada? What is the government going to do about these miners who cannot find work in their own area? It seems to me that their position is almost hopeless if they cannot get back to their old jobs.

Radio Broadcasting-Report


Humphrey Mitchell: I have received no notice of my hon. friend's question-


Richard Burpee Hanson: But the
minister is familiar with the subject.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am familiar with it, too, more so probably, in some respects. Transfers could be arranged to other industries by the employment service of Canada, but as hon. members know, the position taken by the miners primarily is that they should1 be returned to the mines.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree
that that is what they would like.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for
Cape Breton South on February 23 asked me with respect to the miners returning to work at Kirkland Lake. I made inquiries and to-day received this reply from the chairman of the Kirkland Lake committee of operators:
We are taking the men back as quickly as possible with due regard to balancing our operations, but it is slower than we anticipated, and we are giving preference to the older and the married men first and I am sure that when the matter is finally cleared up you will be satisfied that we have done a good job on it.


Mr MacINNIS:: May I ask the minister if he got in touch with the miners' organization to see whether their reply would agree with the operators' reply?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, I have no objection to answering that; it is a proper question. That information came to my desk just as I was leaving for the house. The hon. member for Cape Breton South asked me a direct question, and I answered it as best I knew how, based on the question asked by the particular hon. member interested; and as the matter was raised by the leader of the opposition I thought I might combine the two.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battleford): I should like to address one more question to the Minister of Labour, and to have a definite assurance from him. Is he going to solicit from the union in Kirkland Lake an account of the proceedings in that town with regard to the taking back of men to work in the mines? I ask this question specifically because I was in the town of Kirkland Lake yesterday, and as regards the report of the operators' case which was read by the minister to-day, I would say it is an absolute falsification of what is going on.


Humphrey Mitchell: Answering the last statement of my hon. friend, of course that is a
matter of opinion; she is entitled to her opinion and other people are entitled to theirs. I have always taken the position that one should not convict until all the evidence is in; that is sound British practice. But this can be fairly stated to my hon. friend, that the files of the Department of Labour are fairly complete as regards the case both of the operators and of the miners in connection with the Kirkland Lake dispute. As to the particular question raised by her, if she wishes to receive these files I shall be glad to have them placed at her disposal.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I should like to direct an inquiry to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson). Is it the intention of the government to refer the last annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to a standing or special committee of the house in order that the report may be considered and the operations and policies of the corporation fully reviewed at this time?


Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):: As yet there has been no definite consideration of the matter by the government. I would be glad if the hon. member would let the matter stand. An announcement of the intention of the government in this regard will be made in the course of a few days.


Gordon Graydon: I may mention that last year a similar question was raised. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), under whose department this corporation was at that time, said then that we need not assume that there would be any reference to a committee during the war. That is the reason I asked the question.



ADDRESSES OF MR. LITVINOV AND LORD HALIFAX OVER UNITED STATES STATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: I wish to address a question, of which I gave notice on Friday, to the Minister of National War Services. Was Mr. Maxim Litvinov's first public address as ambassador to the United States, and which, according to news reports, was broadcast last Thursday night over one hundred and eighty United States stations and translated for transmission to
Alaska Highway

south America and the world, carried by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stations in Canada? If not, why not?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have had some inquiries made regarding this question, and have been informed that speeches by ambassadors particularly addressed to the United States public are not normally carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There is however an agreement with the United States broadcasters for an exchange of information and facilities in the case of addresses which would appear to be of special interest in Canada. In this advance information service, Mr. Litvinov's speech of Thursday was not included-


Mr. COLDWTELL:: And that of Lord
Halifax?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: -nor was that of Lord Halifax. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation believes, however, that a speech by Mr. Litvinov would be of great interest to a large number of people in Canada. It has been seeking to make arrangements for a broadcast of that sort, but as yet it has not been possible to make the necessary arrangements.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister not think that a broadcast such as Lord Halifax's statement would be a very fine thing for the Canadian people, stating as he did what sacrifices Britain has made to help Russia?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No doubt it would be.



HUDSON BAY ROUTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the d'ay:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Press items to-day report an apparently increased intensification of submarine attacks on Canadian, British and American shipping on the Atlantic. Coupled with that is the apparent danger of congestion on our railroads of east coast bound freight traffic. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister whether the government has given consideration to an increased use this summer of the Hudson bay route for the shipment of grain and other materials required overseas, thereby reducing the danger of submarine attacks to a considerable extent as well as relieving probable congestion on the railroads; also whether consideration has been given to granting to the United States of America free use of the Hudson Bay railway and the

harbour facilities at Churchill for the remainder of the war?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I were anxious to advise the enemy as to what he should take notice of with respect to his possible avenues of attack in the course of the next few months, I would answer my hon. friend's question in full detail, provided that, in answering it, I were able to give him the kind of assurance which I think he wishes to have. I must say to him that if he will look at his own questions to-morrow he will see that it is not in the public interest that they should be answered publicly. I believe that answer applies to both questions.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: The Prime Minister answered a question of mine appearing on the order paper with respect to the Alaska highway. I should like to ask him a question now. According to news dispatches, the commission of the United States army engineers recently travelling from Edmonton to Alaska in respect to the United States-Alaska highway have reported to the joint international defence board. May I ask if the government has knowledge of such a report? If so, will it lay the report on the table or make some announcement in respect to the matter? I have no desire to elicit military secrets from the Prime Minister, but I believe the country is waiting to know whether the Alaska highway is going to be built this year and what route it is going to follow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not be able to satisfy my hon. friend or others with respect to the point which he has just raised. The matter, as he himself has indicated, is under consideration, but what the final decision will be I am not in a position to say until it is made. As soon as the government is in a position to make a public announcement on the matter it will be made, but meanwhile reports on the subject are necessarily confidential.


George Black: The Prime Minister has already answered several questions with regard to the Alaska highway. I wish to ask either himself or the appropriate minister-possibly the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar)-whether, before the agreement is made with the United States that a highway shall be built from the United States through any part of Canada to Alaska, the route that will be followed, and

Housing-Ottawa
so on-before these questions are definitely decided and an agreement reached, and the route selected-the matter will be submitted to the house. I happen to know a good deal about the terrain over which the route will go and I have my own opinions after a study of a good many years as to where it ought to go, where the interests of the country can best *be served in this war emergency, where freight and other materials should be moved, to and fro, and I should like to be able to give the government the benefit of these opinions and at the same time ascertain what their plans are before they have gone too far to be rectified, if they need rectification. I should like to be assured that the house will be acquainted with what is going to be done before it is finally done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend's question is one of those to which it is rather embarrassing to answer either yes or no. I should not wish to give him either answer at the moment, but I do appreciate what he has just said about the knowledge which he has on matters pertaining to the Yukon and the approaches thereto. This knowledge, I know, the government would be glad to avail itself of. The same may be said of special knowledge possessed by many other hon. members especially those with constituencies in British Columbia. I shall see that what my hon. friend -has in -mind is brought to the attention of my colleagues and also to the attention of the members of the joint defence committee who are dealing with the subject. We shall -perhaps be able to decide, later on, on the course which in the -public interest should be taken.



ENEMY PROPERTY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty). May I say that I thought when I came here that the question should be directed to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), but in these days the departments overlap to such an extent that one hardly'knows to whom to direct a question, as instanced by the return brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) regarding the handling of fish oils. My question has reference to an advertisement which appears in the local paper, British Columbian, of New Westminster, having to do with the sale of fishing boats. The second last paragraph of the advertisement I shall read, and on it I am going to base a question to the Secretary of State:
Offers for fishing boats, if accepted, will be those from bona fide fishermen of fishing companies who are entitled to own vessels of Canadian registry.
My question is: Are these fishing vessels being offered only to those fishermen connected with fishing companies, or are vessels for sale being offered to all fishermen? As one reads this advertisement, it would appear that fishermen must be attached to fishing companies before they can make an offer for these vessels.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: I take it that the hon. member's question is directed to me, not so much as Secretary of State but as custodian of enemy property. I believe a certain limited number of boats were taken possession of, having been formerly owned by Japanese nationals in British Columbia. With regard to the particular .question of the advertisement to which my hon. friend refers, I have had no notice of the question, and should appreciate it if he would allow it to stand until I have had an opportunity to obtain the necessary information.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: May I ask the Prime Minister if the government proposes to take immediate steps to deal with the serious housing situation in the city of Ottawa brought about by the necessity of providing shelter for the multitude of employees engaged on the staffs of the new' departments which it has created; or, alternatively, has it considered the advisability of moving some of these departments to other centres where sufficient accommodation is available, as has been done by the Washington administration?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was kind
enough to give me notice of his question. Since I received his note I have tried to secure information additional to what I already had in a general way, but the wartime housing officials have their office in Toronto and it has not been possible for me to get any additional information from them thus far. I would say with respect to the question of the housing of government employees in Ottawa that the government has been giving a great deal of consideration to the matter. The difficulty here has been that some of the controllers of Avar materials and building supplies have found it very difficult if not impossible to release cer-



War Industries-Working Hours
tain supplies at this time which are required for war purposes. That has created one difficulty with respect to going ahead with some work of construction which might otherwise have been proceeded with.
In regard to decentralization, there is the difficulty that the government departments are much interrelated and it is going to make administration more difficult if decentralization has to be resorted to to any extent. That aspect, however, has been and is being considered. I do not think I can say more than that at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the Prime Minister
if the attitude of the treasury board has not something to do with this? The suggestion has been made in an Ottawa paper-I would not have brought up the question if it had not been raised otherwise-that the treasury board has frowned on the expenditure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think that is correct. My recollection is that the treasury board has been if anything benevolent in regard to most expenses that are being called for.


Mr. CRERAR:: Too benevolent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may be giving the minister more credit than I should, but in this matter I think he has been ready to go ahead if matters could have gotten under way from other sources.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Would not the unemployment insurance commission's activities be just as well housed elsewhere as in Ottawa?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Again it is a matter of administration I think.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY QUESTION AS TO COMPLETION TO SERVE MILITARY PURPOSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I should like to ask the government what is being done to complete the trans-Canada highway in case such highway is required as a military road, and when will it be completed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I heard only part of the hon. member's question. It had reference to something being used as a military road.


Charles Edward Johnston: I asked, when will the trans-Canada highway be completed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say, and I do not believe anyone else can.



WAR INDUSTRIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: I now have an answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) on February 23 as recorded on page 782 of Hansard:
It is impossible to state how many factories producing war supplies are working full time and how many are working only part time. Many plants producing war supplies have only a portion of their employees so engaged. The rest of their employees are working on civilian production.
On inquiry I find that orders placed with aircraft plants in Canada are sufficient to keep each plant operating at full capacity at least until 1943. Lay-offs will take place for some time to come for such reasons as the following:
1.	Orders on certain types of planes are tapering off, and persons engaged in certain occupations are being temporarily laid off until suitable work becomes available on the new models.
2.	The tooling-up process for new models requires much fewer workers than will be required for production.
3.	In some cases lack of materials and delays in securing certain supplies have caused temporary lay-offs.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not hear what the minister said at first. Does he say it is impossible to find out how many factories are working full time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that he allowed his motion on to-day's order paper to stand, and that in other years the subject matter of his motion and the resolution of the-Minister of Agriculture in relation to wheat have always been discussed together, would it be possible to get copies of his bill? It will be impossible to assess the value of either one unless the complementary matter of the other is available.


James Angus MacKinnon: Attention will be given to the suggestion of the hon. member. The question relates to government policy. I do not know that there is anything further I can say at the moment.

Plebiscite Act



PLEBISCITE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 10, respecting the taking of a plebiscite in every electoral district in Canada and the taking of the votes at such plebiscite of Canadian service voters stationed within and without Canada.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Norman Alexander McLarty: I think it might be appropriate, before we proceed too rapidly with the bill, that I should make a few observations in connection with the work of the special committee that was appointed to consider it. I do not think it necessary to make them at any length.
In the first place the committee met and gave intensive study to the measure, even though in point of days consumed the time was short. It will, I think, be a matter of gratification that the report is unanimous, that all shades of opinion were able to agree on the particular enactment that the committee had to consider.
The committee not only considered the particular clauses of the bill, but as the bill provides and as was announced at the time the motion was introduced and upon second reading, regulations to implement the provisions of the bill were also considered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will they be before this committee?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would say not. I think any matter relating to them, any question as to procedure, questions as to scrutineers and things of the kind might properly receive the attention of this committee, but the regulations are not part of the bill. Three provisions were applied, however, which should make the regulations fair in their application.
First, it is provided in the bill itself that these regulations shall as far as possible comply with the sections of the Dominion Elections Act. That would apply largely to the case of the ordinary voter. In the case of the service voter, however, the regulations, which are under separate cover and form a section by themselves, comply with the regulations that were used in the last dominion election in 1940 to take the vote of service voters.
A third point which I might suggest is that while it is undoubtedly undesirable to impose penalties by way of regulations, no penalty is provided under the existing regulations which the committee approved, so far as it
had any authority to approve them, that is not contained in the Dominion Elections Act, save one. That is the provision of the bill as to vouching and illegal voting by way of the vouching provisions, so that every penalty clause included in the regulations has received the consideration of the parliament of Canada. In other words the specific regulations relating to ordinary voters are an adaptation as closely as possible of the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act. So far ns they relate to service voters they are an adaptation of the regulations used in the last dominion election, which apparently worked successfully. I believe the regulations have been distributed to hon. members, as was the bill, after consideration by the special committee. Consequently, I suggest that there can be no possible objection to giving to the committee any information that may be required as to specific points covered by the regulations, but to go over the regulations clause by clause as we undoubtedly shall on the bill, in the case of both ordinary voters and service voters, would probably be an undue waste of time of this committee and of the house.
With these few general remarks I should like to deal with the amendments, because the committee did make some amendments to the bill. The principle of the bill has been debated at length, but despite that fact the special committee gave careful and considered attention to the respective sections. In general, it may be said three principal amendments have been made. The first of these is to ensure that the bill is not general, but specific in application. That is done by a definite amendment to section 3 by setting out therein the form and terms of the ballot, and by making other necessary minor changes, such as changing "a" to "the" when it is necessary to prescribe a particular limitation in respect of the plebiscite. That is the first important amendment.
The second amendment extends the coverage of the bill to include a situation which arose in connection with the Yellowknife administration district. The bill itself refers to electoral districts. This was a district which had grown up within the last few years, but which was not included within the definition of the term "electoral district". Representations were made by representatives of the council of the northwest territories to the effect that the people who had settled in the Yellowknife administration district within the last few years should not be disfranchised. The committee saw fit to accede to the representations thus made, by adding a new paragraph (d), the wording of which includes the administration district of Yellowknife.
Plebiscite Act

This is a compact district, having something like 1,400 voters all within a radius of three and a half miles. Although it is a new district, the act of disfranchising them appeared to the special committee both unjustified and unjustifiable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are they
at present in any electoral district?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No, they are not, and
that is why we have had to have a specific paragraph (d); otherwise they would not be included. It is true that there are others in the northwest territories who might have been considered, but it was thought to be impracticable to include them because of the vast area and the tremendous expense which might be involved. The committee sought to extend the bill as far as possible without involving any great measure of expense in connection with the vote.
The third major amendment is that found in paragraph (c) of subsection 2, section 4. During his observations the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) pointed out that in that paragraph we were leaving with the provinces the possibility of regulating as to those who might vote in the plebiscite. It is remarkable, I believe, that in the plebiscite of 1898 provincial lists were used exclusively.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We had no federal lists then.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No, as the leader of the opposition has said, we had no dominion lists. Prohibitions were made in the elections act of 1938; but in order that there might be no misapprehensions in the matter we have provided in paragraph (c) that the provincial enactment shall be operative only at the time of the coming into force of this act. It precludes any possibility, as suggested by the hon. member for Rosthern, that between now and the taking of the plebiscite provincial legislation could be extended to disfrancise other voters in Canada.
I believe those are the main amendments recommended by the special committee. A perusal of the bill will indicate the minor changes. I might explain that the words inserted in paragraph (c) of subsection 2, section 4, are "at the time of the coming into force of this act." The leader of the opposition will recognize the change. It merely limits any change in the provincial right to amend an election list to the time when the act comes into force.
I believe I have dealt with all the important amendments. Minor changes must necessarily be made in order to give effect to the chief amendments. Then, some other matters were considered by the special committee. In the debate on the resolution and

on the second reading of the bill there was some discussion as to the break-down of cost. It was suggested by the leader of the opposition that the break-down might be examined by the special committee, and then placed on Hansard. That break-down was given to the special committee, and I believe the purposes of this committee would be served if I were to have leave to place the break-dowm on Hansard. It is as follows:
The following is the estimated detailed cost of the holding of a plebiscite, subject to the adoption of the proposed procedure for compiling lists of voters, and subject also to approval by the governor in council of a tariff of fees providing lower allowances than those paid at the last general election.
1. Plebiscite supplies consisting of ballot papers, books of instructions, index books, poll books, record books, and various blank
forms required to be ordered by
the chief electoral officer	 $	80,000
2.	Temporary assistance i,n the office
of the chief electoral officer...	7,500
3.	Sundry expenditure in office of
the chief electoral officer, such as stationery, telegrams, etc	 3,000
4.	Returning officers' personal services,
32.000	polls at $4	 128,000
5.	Clerical assistance to returning officers,
32.000	polls at $1.50	 48,000
6.	Sundry expenditure by returning officers,
243 estimated to average at $50	12,150
7.	Rental of offices	by	returning
officers,
80 at $75	 $ 6,000
163 at	$50	 8,150

 14,150
8.	Election Clerks,
123 at $25	 $ 3,075
120 at	$10	 1,200

 4,275
9.	Printing ordered	by	returning
officers	 17,000
10.	Urban enumerators,
3.500.000	names at	7	cents.... 245,000
11.	Rural enumerators,
3.500.000	names at	7	cents___	245,000
12.	Deputy returning officers,
32.000	at $6	 192,000
13.	Poll clerics,
32.000	at $3	 96,000
14.	Polling stations, urban,
12.000	at	$8... $96,0002.000	at	$4	
8,000
104,000
15.	Polling stations, rural,
16.000	at	$5... $80,0002.000	at	$3	
6,000
86,000
16.	Advance polling stations,
200 at $41	 8,200
17.	Constables,
10.000	at $2.50	
25,00018.	Travelling by	plebiscite officers..	50,00019.	Allowances and expenses of special returning officers, chief assistants, scrutineers, and clerical assistantsre Canadian service voters....	50,00020. Sundries	
85,000

Plebiscite Act
A question was asked by the leader of the opposition as to the specific date on which the plebiscite will be held. I believe it is the unanimous opinion of the committee that the earlier the date selected, the better it will be. When introducing the resolution I suggested it was difficult to have it in a shorter time than ten weeks. Just when the bill will become law is a matter which will depend not only on this committee but on the action taken in another place. Royal assent will have to be given. I believe, however, that assurance can be given the committee that the plebiscite will be held at the earliest possible moment. Of course the bill itself provides that the vote must be held on a Monday, and to some extent when determining the date we are in the hands of the electoral officer.
Another point that was raised by the leader of the opposition had to do with the actual procedure to be followed in taking the vote of the active service voters. This was placed before the special committee and I think it was a matter of some interest. I do not believe it would be outside the interest of this committee if I outlined the exact procedure which it is proposed to follow.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is all in this pamphlet.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Has that been circularized to every member of the committee?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think it has.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is what I had in mind when I proposed taking up the time of the committee by reading it. This is a memorandum prepared by the chief electoral officer and it gives the clear and definite procedure which was followed in 1940 in taking the overseas vote.


George Black: I do not think the minister is quite correct in referring to it as the overseas vote; it applies to Canada as well.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Service voters. There are two classes of voters, ordinary and service, and this refers to the method of taking a vote of the service voters.
The vote of the Canadian members of His Majesty's forces and corps on active service and in training within and without Canada will be taken in much the same manner as the vote of active service electors was taken at the last general election.
Special returning officers will be appointed and will establish offices in London, England, in Newfoundland, and in various places in Canada.
To some extent we will be in the hands of the Department of National Defence as to the exact points at which troops are concentrated
and at which it would be practicable to take a vote. In so far as it can be done, the vote will be taken on the widest possible basis, but there are some who will necessarily be overlooked. For example, there are men serving in the imperial forces or in parts of the world where it would be impracticable to take a complete vote. The only assurance that this committee can be given is that in so far as the Department of National Defence feels that a vote can be taken practicably, it will be taken.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Guards serving in outlying districts could be brought in?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is too broad a question for me to answer. I think the question would have to relate to a specific district before it could be dealt with. I suggest that there are probably no outlying districts in Canada that could not be reached, but that would be subject to the advice of the Department of National Defence. I continue with the memorandum:
These special returning officers will distribute ballot papers, envelopes and other plebiscite supplies to commanding officers named by the Department of National Defence and stationed in the territory under their jurisdiction. Such commanding oificers will designate a commissioned officer attached to his unit to take the votes of the members of such unit. As at the last dominion election, what is termed postal voting will be resorted to in the recording of such votes. The voting will be held on nine week days immediately preceding polling day. The hours of voting will be fixed by the commanding officer, but shall be not less than three each day.
When a Canadian service voter seeks to vote at the polling place, he will first be required to complete a declaration giving his full name, his regimental number, that he is a British subject, that he has not voted before at the plebiscite, that he ordinarily resided in Canada prior to his enlistment, and giving the name of the place, with street address, of such ordinary residence in Canada.
When this declaration has been duly completed and signed by both the voter and the commissioned officer, the voter will be handed a ballot paper in practically the same form as that used in Canada, and an inner envelope, and will go to a compartment and there secretly mark his ballot paper. The ballot paper will then be folded, and, in full view of the commissioned officer, placed in the inner envelope. The inner envelope will then be placed into an outer envelope addressed to the special returning officer, and upon which the postage is paid. The voter will then himself mail the envelope at the nearest post office or mail box.
Upon receipt of the outer envelopes in the office of the special returning officer, they will be examined and parcelled in lots of 500. Each parcel being labelled with a consecutive number and stored in a safe place until the counting of the vote begins.
At six o'clock on polling day the special returning officer and his staff will count the ballot papers included in each lot of 500 and

Plebiscite Act
a special statement of the count will be completed in the ease of each lot. A period of one week is allowed for the counting of the votes of Canadian service voters.
The special returning officer will then be required to send to the chief plebiscite officer by telegraph, or otherwise, a statement of the number of votes cast in the affirmative and in the negative, respectively, at the plebiscite in the territory under his jurisdiction. As soon as this is done, the special returning officer will transmit to the chief plebiscite officer a statement giving the number of votes cast in the affirmative and in the negative, respectively, in each of the lots of 500 outer envelopes parcelled as above referred to.


Mr. STIRLING:: It would look as though a large proportion of the 27,000 sailors will be unable to vote.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is a matter which the chief electoral officer is taking up with the Department of National Defence for Naval Services. Of course it will be quite difficult for some of those who are actually on the high seas to vote. The chief electoral officer explained to the special committee that in so far as the Department of National Defence for Naval Services could advise him, arrangements would be made to take the vote as widely as possible. I know the hon. member will appreciate that there will be no intentional desire to miss anyone, but inevitably there will be some votes that cannot be taken.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The naval department could make it possible to take the greater majority, if they wished.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is the desire, and I think I can assure the committee that no steps will be left untaken to see that every man, whether in the navy, the air force or the army who can be reached, is given an opportunity to cast his vote. It is a matter of the mechanics of the thing. The committee instructed the chief electoral officer in no uncertain terms that they wished the coverage to be as broad as possible, and with that he agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: In totalling up the votes of the service voters will it be done en masse, by constituencies or by provinces?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It will be en masse; there will be no attempt made to relate the total to a particular riding or constituency.
Other suggestions were made when the resolution was being considered, one by the leader of the opposition being that as a condition precedent to obtaining a ballot the registration card of any voter should be required to be presented. The committee gave that careful consideration and the conclusion arrived at was that since it was desired to get the widest possible vote, the

least possible number of obstacles should be placed in the way of those who are anxious to vote. It was thought that the benefit to be derived from insisting as a condition precedent upon the production of registration cards would be more than offset by the fact that a good many of those who wished to vote, admitting it is the law, might inadvertently-


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is the law.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Of course it is, but inadvertently they might lack them. For the purposes of identification the registration card1 would have only one value, as to the name. While a registrant is supposed to advise the department of any change of address, the card itself would not contain any record of that. For this reason, while careful consideration was given to it, it was thought that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages.
In the next place, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) made the suggestion on Thursday last that it might be possible to acquire a new registration by virtue of making registration compulsory in order to vote. The committee gave that consideration, but there again, bearing in mind the different ages of registrants as compared with voters, and that there would be a large class of active service voters which the registration would not in any event affect, it was thought better to allow the polling to be more wide open and not have it compulsory to have registration, which would not be compulsory, on the one hand, but might be inducive to voting on the other.
Another matter which was considered by the committee was that discussed by the hon. leader of the opposition, with respect to the section of the act allowing for vouching and declaration by a proposed voter who had been left off the enumeration list. The committee considered that carefully. They had the experience of the chief electoral officer and of counsel for the chief electoral officer, and the conclusion to which they came was this:	In the
rural sections there is no doubt that the open vote works out satisfactorily. In the urban centres on such a wide scale it might fairly be said that the open vote has not been taken advantage of. It has, however, been used in a number of the provinces, in Saskatchewan, for example, and it has been used in urban municipalities with a population up to 10,000. The evidence presented to the committee, which undoubtedly determined the committee's decision on the matter, was that wherever this system of voting has been used it has been proven satisfactory.

Plebiscite Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has it ever been tried in Montreal?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No, it has not been tried in Montreal, or in any urban centre with a population over 10,000. But the fact that wherever it has been tried it has worked out satisfactorily led the committee to believe that perhaps a wider experiment would not be disadvantageous and would not prove to be disastrous to the vote itself, in any way, shape or form. In other words, merely because it has not been tried out on a wider scale is scarcely any justification for saying that while it has worked out well wherever it has been we should not extend the field where it operates. Consequently, the committee felt that for the purpose of this plebiscite the system of vouching and swearing could with advantage be tried, and the thought was expressed that it would work out in a satisfactory manner.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Could the clerk or the
deputy returning officer vouch for a voter who came in?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The answer to that is no. When I say the answer is no, I believe the answer is no. The one who vouches has to be a qualified voter in the same subdivision.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: May I follow that up. I
think the point is important. People will go to the polls to vote, thinking they are on the list and then find they are not on the list. In order to vote they would have to find someone to vouch for them. But once in the booth they cannot go out. Then they would be deprived of their vote.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is a matter of regulation into which I should like to inquire further. But I suggest this: it is the intention to post a list of voters, and anyone wishing to vote can go to the trouble, if he wishes, of seeing whether his name is on the list. My impression is that the man who leaves the booth is not thereby disqualified from voting. My impression is that he is disqualified if he refuses to take the oath.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Under the act, if he goes out, he cannot come in again to vote.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am not going to question the hon. member's judgment on that, because I know he has had a wider experience than I have.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I have had plenty of experience with it.


Mr.  M. J. COLD WELL@Rosetown-Biggar: That is how many voters were disqualified in 1917.


Norman Alexander McLarty: A voter could not return to vote if he refused to take the oath, but if he merely went into the booth and then
came out he was not excluded from returning. That is a point on which I should be very glad to get information.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Are we not confusing two things, the booth and the polling place? Once a man has gone into the booth he certainly cannot vote again.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I simply followed the wording used by the hon. member for Waterloo South. It should be "polling place."


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no limitation on the number of voters for whom one elector can vouch; that is to say, no limitation on wholesale vouching? The minister sees my point; there may be a racket.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The only limitation that is placed on the person vouching is that section of the act which provides severe penalties for vouching for an unqualified voter. Otherwise there is no limitation placed on the number of voters for whom one person can vouch. The limitation is purely a matter of the penalties which are prescribed against illegal vouching.
There are other matters which the committee considered, but I believe I have dealt with the principal ones, and I suggest that the others might await consideration of the bill, clause by clause.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago, it is my intention now to read a very important and magnificent letter which has been sent by a great Canadian citizen to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. It was received by Mr. Churchill this morning, having been sent across via ferryscommand. The letter is dated Montreal, February 25, 1942, and reads:
The Right Honourable
Winston Spencer Churchill,
Prime Minister,
10 Downing Street, London, England.
Mr. Prime Minister:
A citizen of the commonwealth, no matter how humble, always enjoys the right to communicate with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to give him his reflections and make known to him his thoughts. There are moments, rare it is true, when the right becomes a duty. I think that, for the writer, that moment has arrived, sir.
Mr. Prime Minister, the citizen who writes is a Canadian of the French language, a loyal subject of the King of Canada, faithful to the culture of his forebears, devoted to the Franeo-British union in Canada, who prays with all his power for a total war effort. He believes that the future of the world rests in the victory of the united nations and their defence of free institutions.
He is one of your admirers, for you are the great heroic figure of the war. Victorious over the treachery of the appeasers you have, in an
Plebiscite Act

hour of tragic responsibility become the spirit incarnate of British resistance, the spirit of the Commonwealth's sacrifice, the spirit of victory itself. With that spirit you have inspired the whole coalition. After the abandonment of Czechoslovakia, stupid and dishonourable as it was; after the destruction of Poland; after the disaster of Norway; after the defeat of Holland and Belgium; after the fall of France; Britain stood alone with the commonwealth nations against the nazi monster. The position of Russia was uncertain and ambiguous; the United States, far away in distance and in its own state of mind, disarmed, its people devoted to the ways of peace, believed itself safe behind the two oceans which lave its shores. In this desperate plight you alone were not desperate, did not despair. You communicated your hope and courage to all men. Led by you, Britain faced with high hope whatever sacrifice might be met, faced it alone with her sister nations of the commonwealth, engaging her very existence and that of her empire. Because your magnificent words have spurred men to new hope, because Britain made it known that she would perish before she would yield, you have brought home to men everywhere the prime condition of victory . . . the will to win.
To-day you are faced by a new task, one more difficult and which will call for the exercise of new virtues in you. Victory will not adorn your standards until you accept the new task with all the tenacity which marks your very appearance. You have united the will and the conscience of all men of good will to fight for freedom, have done it with brave heart and brave words. Now we must go on and win.
Now we must win . . . It is no longer a question of eloquence.
Now it is a question of eternal vigilance, of intelligent imagination, of sternness in criticism, of passionate devotion of the services, who certainly yearn for victory but which, in all truth, are overburdened by a stiff-necked bureaucracy at the top. The duty of our political leaders is undoubtedly to protect the fair name of the services, if only for the sake of the dignity of the homeland, and there are times when, for this very reason, the statesman must suffer attack in silence. But the duty of the political leader is. above all, to control, to criticize, to inspire, to discipline the services of the state, both civil and military, to eliminate from them all uselessness and paralysis and to imbue them with fighting spirit, imagination, realism and the will to action. Never believe, sir, that the services will reform themselves from within; every biological organism, or social organism, always attempts by natural law to retain its existing form and being. It is only possible to change it from without. We cannot change the natures of men. But we can change men.
I do not think, Mr. Prime Minister, that I am unduly pessimistic. I believe with all my heart in the possibility, the hope, of victory. But we shall have to. change methods and we shall have to change men. The democracies always seem to believe that it is sufficient to change ministers. That is only a beginning. Changes are urgently needed, at the top, in all the services of the state. Unless the series of disastrous events is to continue we must find men of initiative to undertake command of our forces, our technical departments and the

services of the state as a whole. The cry of the ostrich: "The British only win one battle in any war; the last one!" still seems to be our slogan. The Lords of the Admiralty still think, no doubt, that it is enough to be British to be invincible and to them the column which commemorates Trafalgar and the spirit of Nelson in itself constitutes a definite promise of victory. Was it not Kipling who said: "If blood be the price of Admiralty, Lord God we have paid in full!"?
I do not wish to make a dolorous inventory of the series of disasters which have attended us on the seas. They provide a stern indictment against Britain's senior services. These continuous disasters have seriously impaired the spirit of all men, sir. Bring into your mind's eye, before your coldest and most lucid judgment, the effects of just the most recent on even the most resolute hearts .	.	. The
Prince of Wales and the Repulse, redoubtable and magnificent instruments of naval science, yet sent to the bottom almost instantly, for lack of aerial defence.	Think of the
Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prim Eugen, bombarded for months in the harbour of Brest, yet with an insolent defiance which commands respect, braving Britain's power as they forced the Channel and the straits of Dover, despite the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the guns of Dover.
What food for thought such occasions create! Do not tell us, as the services would like us to believe, that the escape of these three ships from Brest is a victory, or at least an amelioration of sea-problems, almost as though the great ships of the Royal Navy had let them through the Straits for that reason. You have courageously offered the people blood, sweat and tears. They accept this new defeat with grim resolution. They will accept more. But your duty and your policy must be to limit to the smallest inevitable amount this expenditure of blood, sweat and tears of a determined people.
It is no longer a question of heart or of eloquence. To-day the problem is one for the intelligence, one of implacable reform in high places. It is not possible for men to work 24 hours a day. But the departments of war must work without respite and with true intelligence if we are to win. Rejuvenate your Admiralty, sir. Do not judge all men by yourself, Mr. Prime Minister; not all the old men enjoy your physical and mental youth. Cut down by ten and twenty years the ages of all the men at the top. Forget peace-time rules of advancement. Let the young generals who win successes on the field receive without delay, not medals, but immediate increase in the importance of their commands. Surround yourself with twenty or a hundred young men . . . military men, naval men, aviators, men of science, engineers, business men . . . whose function it will be to think, and plan. Let it be their mission to exercise a passionate, endless, zealous watch over all the services of the state, military, naval, air force, foreign affairs, whatever these may be. Inspire these young men with your own spirit, as young men in other countries have been inspired to leadership by another passion, the nazi doctrine.
Our combatants are pledged resolutely to the supreme sacrifice. Our material of war reaches immense proportions and it grows from day to day with prodigious speed. With such great

Plebiscite Act
resources at your command, in men and munitions, do not permit the victory of our cause to be delayed forever by the ingrained bureaucracy of old men of old mind.
We cannot lose the war. You have said so with moving eloquence which has stirred the whole world, rekindling its hope and its determination. But, Mr. Prime Minister, I put it to you that we cannot make the right moves on the chessboard of war if we leave the responsibility for decision to fossilized old men in uniforms.
Think, as often men did during the course of the last war, of the magnificent statue of the Victory of Samothrace, which was intended to crown the prow of a victorious battleship. It was clad in the wind. Its wings were spread for flight. But the Victory had no head! We cannot fight in such terms to-day. The true direction of this war depends upon creative minds, on organization, on skilled and determined leadership. What we need is not committees of old men in uniforms who come together occasionally to discuss the problems of the war as a matter of course, or- duty, but who leave all initiative to the enemy. We need a brain trust, young and energetic, of whom constructive thinking, imagination, determination and daring will be expected daily . . . men who are not afraid to act, men who are not still fighting the last war . . . men who will brush aside all obstacles, permanent officials of alert and innovating mind. This is the urgent need in the armed forces and in all branches of administration of the war.
This is the price of victory.
Mr. Churchill, your back is against the wall, face to face with this task. Discharge it well and men will follow you to the ends of the earth.
I have the honour to be,
Mr. Prime Minister, Respectfully yours,
Emile Vaillancourt.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no idea in the world why that letter has been embalmed in Hansard. I was not able to follow it. carefully but I shall read it. In the meantime, if the government had any knowledge of what was in the letter I think the Prime Minister ought to have taken a point of order so that it should not be in Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had no
knowledge of the letter, but I think it is a very good one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Maybe it is; I do not know whether it is or it isn't.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. gentleman does not know, he has only one thing to do-say nothing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think that ought to be struck out of the record. It is an impertinent observation on the part of the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is pertinent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think it should be in the record. He has no right to interject anything of that kind.
Whatever observations I have to make to-day will be confined to the bill immediately before us. I regret to have observed, as the ' minister proceeded, that certain recommendations which I made-I believe it was in the committee stage on the resolution-have been rejected by the committee. I shall deal with these briefly as I come to them, but I want to register immediately a vigorous protest against the statement made by the minister near the conclusion of his remarks, that the service votes are to be counted en masse. I think the soldiers, sailors and airmen will want it to be known how they voted in relation to their constituencies, and, if that is not possible, at least in relation to their provinces. To allocate the votes in the general amount as pro and con will not, I think, be satisfactory to the men themsleves, and certainly it will not be satisfactory to us.
The bill which is now before the committee, the reprint as a result of the committee's report, differs entirely in principle, although not in form, with certain exceptions, from the bill to which second reading was given last week. I think it is the most awkward kind of drafting I have ever seen, to take a general bill of this kind and superimpose limitations upon it and make it a special bill applicable to one particular situation. From the standpoint of draftsmanship it could not be worse. I do not know why the bill was ever introduced in the form in which it was brought down unless it was the policy of the government to have the principle of the plebiscite in our system. I do not think for a moment that that was ever the intention of the Prime Minister. Certainly there was no utterance of his or of the Secretary of State which would give justification for that principle. The bill should have been withdrawn and brought down as a special bill designed to take this plebiscite. Instead of that, we have superimposed on the bill special limitations, including the ballot itself, as promised by the Prime Minister; but the rest of the bill is general in its character.
I do not suppose the government will at this late stage accept the suggestion which I made last week and withdraw the bill and bring it back in the form which good draftsmanship would dictate. With the limitations imposed by the amendments, that is to say, the limitation with respect to the ballot, and with the limitation that the ballot shall only be applicable to this plebiscite and no other plebiscite, I am in agreement. I am objecting just at the moment to the method by which that position has been arrived at. As a

Plebiscite Act

lawyer, I say it offends my sense of good draftsmanship, and I am sure that will appeal to the Secretary of State as well. Whoever drafted the bill proceeded on a certain principle when it was the intention of the government, as I gather, that it should have been on another principle. That is all I am going to say about the form of the bill.
The changes as indicated by the minister were three. In section 2(d) a new definition of electoral district has been given so as to provide for including the Yellowknife administration district. That is all right. Where there are fourteen hundred people living in a contiguous settlement, in a territory which is not within an electoral district, they should have the right to vote. I have not the slightest objection to that. Section 3(1) provides for limitation to the taking of the ballot on the question set out in the ballot paper. I wish to make some brief observations with respect to the ballot. The question is the one which the Prime Minister stated in his speech on February 25. I have not compared it but I take it for granted that the very words are used.


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is identical.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am wondering why it was put in this form, the same question repeated twice. However, I am not raising any great objection to that, although it does seem to me to be a rather awkward way of doing it. Why should not the voter be asked to vote yes or no? Here we have two questions put to the voter and he is asked to put a cross after yes or after no as the case may be.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I intended to deal with that point in my remarks, and I wonder if the hon. member would object to my interjecting an observation here, because that was a matter that received very serious consideration by the committee. A number thought that perhaps one question could do, being answered yes or no. The point that swayed the committee in its decision was the evidence given by the chief electoral officer that this is a form of ballot that has been used repeatedly under the dominion temperance act, and the experience has been very satisfactory. A number of members of the committee, before they heard that evidence, thought that one question, to be answered yes or no, would be desirable; but after hearing the explanation it was decided otherwise. It looks like a doublebarrelled proceeding, but that was the view of the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
obliged to the minister for the explanation, and there may be a good deal of reason in what he says. I should never have thought of repeating the question. I hope, however, it will work out all right. When we get to the committee stage I want to ask the minister certain specific questions with respect to some of the sections, but I shall not pause to deal with that now.
I wonder whether this parliament ever before consented to the imposition of penalties by regulations that never came before parliament. I may be all wrong, but I think that is a terrible principle, to impose penalties in regulations that under this bill have the force of law, that may be changed overnight by the governor in council and never come before parliament, and under which a man can be put in gaol.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I might remind my hon. friend that there is not a single penalty in the regulations that the parliament of Canada has not passed on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think in his previous statement the minister made one exception.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is included in this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This parliament has not passed on those regulations. For a government to bring down a measure imposing penalties by regulation which might land a man in gaol without the people's representatives having anything to say about the matter savours at least of dictatorship, if nothing worse. I do object to that. In a democratic country to impose penalties involving the liberty of the subject without the [DOT]people's representatives having anything to say is an absolute negation of liberalism, of democracy.
I do not want to discuss the penalties. The minister has said that the regulations follow, as nearly as may be, those in the elections act. I would point out one exception. In this country we have been against the idea of the numbered ballot, because without doubt it is a method whereby the secrecy of the ballot is destroyed. If the minister will turn to section 28 of the Dominion Elections Act, chapter 46 of 1938, subsection 5 reads:
(5) The ballot papers shall be numbered on the back of the stub and the counterfoil, the same number being printed or written on the stub as on the counterfoil; each ballot paper shall bear on the back thereof an impression of the stereotype block supplied by the chief. electoral officer pursuant .to subsection 2 of section 13 of this act.

Plebiscite Act
Then it goes on to say that the ballot paper shall be bound up. Section 15 of the ordinary voter plebiscite regulations reads:
15. (1) Immediately after the issue of the proclamation, the chief plebiscite officer shall cause the ballot papers to be used at the plebiscite held under the Dominion Plebiscite Act, 1942, and these regulations, to be printed on both sides, consecutively numbered, perforated and bound in books of twenty-five. . . .
If that clause is left in the regulations, every deputy returning officer and any man in the voting booth will be enabled, if he so desires, to leant how every voter voted. I do not think the minister intended that. I do not understand how that escaped the eagle eyes of the members of this committee, unless they are going to adopt a new principle and hereafter we are going to have numbered ballots. If that is going to be the case in Canada, look out. I do not know any better chance for tracing a voter's ballot and finding out how he voted. The numbered counterfoil I understand. That is a safeguard against fraud from the time the ballot leaves the hands of the deputy returning officer and is taken into the secret compartment until it is brought back and delivered to him. That is quite proper. But that is detached before the ballot is deposited in the box. I hope the Prime Minister, who is following me closely, will get my point. To have the ballot numbered as provided by clause 15 of these regulations is to provide a method whereby the secrecy of the ballot is destroyed. I ask hon. members to study this thing and test it. I ask that that regulation be changed, and I do not think I ought to have to elaborate the reasons why. There is no doubt that this is not in conformity with the elections act. I have demonstrated that. It is not a real adaptation of subsection 5 of section 28 of the act to which I have referred. If this is kept in the regulations, it is a violation of every principle of the secrecy of the ballot, enabling identification of voters, and it opens the door to abuses of the most glaring kind. I appeal to the government to have that changed. A very simple wording in the regulations following the provisions of subsection 5 of section 28 of the act will bring about the cure I am seeking. I think I should not have to argue that any further. Everybody will agree that we ought to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. I do not understand how the chief electoral officer, having regard to the provisions of subsection 5 of section 28, ever put that in the regulations, or what he had in mind. Certainly I would not for a moment think the government instructed him to do it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly not.
44561-60J


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not at all. I would not think the government would have any ulterior purpose like that, and if the minister is now cognizant of what I am endeavouring to substantiate, I think he will rise in his place immediately and say that should be changed.
Unless these regulations have been checked with the greatest care, there may be other instances where there has not been a proper adaptation of the provisions of the elections act. I pointed out to the house in the committee stage that the regulations should be instructive and interpretative, but that they should not be enacting or legislating.
That is a very sound principle, but it has not been followed. Apparently it never was the intention of the government to follow it. I admit it would take time but, after all, this is an important matter, even though it is now limited to one plebiscite. We ought not to do by regulation that which heretofore and under the general law of the country is done by legislative enactment. There is no doubt in the world about the power of the government to change any of these regulations. Just let us look at section 9:
9. (1) The governor in council may, for the purposes of this act, make such regulations as are expedient for the effectual taking of the plebiscite and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, for the printing, distribution and publication of the act and instructions issued thereunder, the preparation of voters' lists and other documents.
I refer particularly to subsection 3:
(3) Any regulations made under this act shall have the same force and effect as if enacted in this act.
I protest against legislation by regulation, even though the necessity for speed, from the government's point of view exists. This is wrong in principle, and it ought not to be followed in practice. I can just hear the welkins ring if my right hon. friend were in my place, and I were over there! He would object to this-make no mistake about it- and he would be right. I have thrown out in a gentlemanly manner the suggestion that the government ought not to do this sort of thing. My suggestion has been entirely ignored. This is not right; it is not good legislation, and it is not democracy.
In the course of my previous observations I made reference to the production of registration certificates. The committee did me the honoui of investigating the matter but, according to the Secretary of State they were unanimous against my suggestion. I tell the minister and the committee that there are a large number of people in Canada who never registered under the national registration scheme. How great that number is I do not know. But I would
Plebiscite Act

point out the law of the country states that everybody shall carry his registration certificate. Those people who did no.t register are shirkers, and ought not to be allowed to vote in a plebiscite which may, or may not, mean a great deal.
Any man who has not registered should not be permitted to vote. Every good citizen will have his registration certificate. I have carried mine, although I have never been asked to show it. I am sure, however, that each hon. member carries his registration certificate. The present bill allows a man who never intended to register, a man who may be a shirker, and everything else, to exercise his franchise. Is that a proper principle to encourage? The carrying of a registration certificate is no hardship. The Secretary of State has said it was the opinion of the committee that some people from rural areas might have forgotten their registration certificates. I heard about a man who died, and in whose safety deposit vault was found his registration certificate. That is the last place I should think it ought to have been. I know of no place where a man could get it less quickly.
There is no real reason in the world why a man should not produce his registration certificate, if he wishes to vote. This is a time of war, and it was my understanding that national registration was primarily intended to line up the man-power and woman-power of a nation. There have been cases of prosecutions for non-registration; there have been other cases of prosecutions for fraudulent connection with registration, and there have been other prosecutions with respect to the issuing of floating registration certificates. I cannot, however, conceive of any good reason why the government should give a vote to the man who for safety's sake, shall I say, did not register. I suppose it is now too late to make the necessary change. I would point out, however, that it is the law of the country that every man shall carry his registration certificate. If the government does not place in these regulations or in the bill something such as I have suggested, it will be saying in effect to'the man who did not register, "Well, it is the law of the country, but we are not going to enforce that law."
May I now turn to the question of the open vote in urban municipalities. I said on an earlier occasion that open voting in rural districts, where a man could be vouched for by another elector, was a safe and proper procedure, because everybody knows everybody else. There would always be someone who could properly vouch for a prospective voter, and subscribe to the terms of the oath. But I tell the Secretary of State that in large urban centres the open vote will be subject to rMr. R. B. Hanson.]
great abuse; it will be an instrument of fraud. Why, there is not anything in certain constituencies of the city of Montreal which is not resorted to at election time. It is well known that elections in Montreal are-I cannot summon language adequate to describe the fraud practised. They had nothing in Tammany Hall on election methods in Montreal.
I have heard of cases in smaller areas, under
10.000	persons where one man vouched for dozens of electors. My colleague will speak about that, later in the debate. You see, it becomes a racket, and I say this practice of open voting ought not to apply to the big urban centres. I have had no experience in other large urban areas, such as Toronto, but I have heard stories about what obtained at some points, and my information leads me firmly to the conviction that we cannot be too careful m our provisions to ensure honest voting in some of the big cities. There are all kinds of frauds. This measure lends itself to that type of fraud, when nobody knows anybody else, and it will become a racket. I suggest to the Secretary of State that the fact that certain members feel that the system of open voting has worked well in certain rural areas is no argument with respect to urban areas, because conditions are entirely different. The premise upon which one reaches the conclusion that a system may work well in one given situation, does not exist in the other situation.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think I went a little farther than suggesting rural areas; I suggested urban areas up to 10,000 population.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is about the size of my own city. When I was a young man I knew practically every man and woman in my city. Most younger people would. I cannot say that that applies to-day because I do not live in my city six months in the year. Generally speaking, in cities of
10.000	or under, most people know all the adults either by sight or personally. If it is not too late, I would suggest that this be reconsidered.
On the matter of taking the active service votes, I see no reason why a very large proportion of the army vote should not be taken. As a rule, these men are concentrated fairly well, although there may be a few isolated cases. I am thinking of the men overseas who are all in Great Britain. But what about Canadians who are operating with the Royal Air Force? What about the several hundred Canadians who are with the Royal Navy? These boys would like to vote. My colleague has a son in that position and he would like to vote. What arrangements

Plebiscite Act
are going to be made to take care of these boys? As I said, there are a great many Canadians in the Royal Canadian Air Force who are operating with the Royal Air Force, and they are not segregated by any means. 1 saw them working under Royal Air Force direction in certain parts of the old country. Are they to have a chance to vote? I am afraid, unless we get some assurance, they will not be given a chance to vote.
I do not see much difficulty about the army except where they may be isolated. I understand there are Canadian engineers in Gibraltar, and there may be some Canadians acting as observers in Libya and that sort of thing. I would think it would be almost an impossibility to get their votes, but what about the men at Gibraltar? I think it is most important that every service vote should be polled at this plebiscite. Certainly these men will have opinions on this question, and they are at a disadvantage as compared with the men at home. The greatest care will have to be exercised to get the service vote out.
I regret I have not had1 time to do more than read the memorandum which the minister quoted this afternoon and which outlines what is proposed to be done. I have not had time to read the regulations under which the service vote is to be taken. I should like to point out to the minister that in the last election a substantial proportion of the service votes was not polled. I have not a memorandum in front of me from which I could give the exact figure, but no doubt the authorities will know just what proportion was not polled. There was a substantial proportion polled in Canada, but in England all the service vote was not polled.
To sum up briefly, because I do not want to keep the committee too long, I object to the draftsmanship of the bill, but I am bound to admit as a lawyer that, awkward as it may be, it meets the objection which I have. This bill will die in law at the conclusion of the plebiscite. It is fairly good draftsmanship with respect to the general bill, but when you have superimposed these limitations and restrictions, from the point of view of legal draftsmanship it is just a botch. I still think the suggestion I made as to the production of registration certificates is sound for the reasons I gave. No man who has not registered should be allowed to vote in this or any other election.
I am going to deal with certain sections in the bill when we reach them, and I shall ask the minister for definite information. He has announced an amendment to section 4 which deals with the disqualification of voters to make this relate to the time of the coming
into force of the measure. This will be quite definite if the principle involved in this section is adhered to. I assume that that will be the case and this, of course, remedies certain objections which were raised in the committee. I shall ask the minister certain questions about this matter of disqualification.
I intend to refer particularly to the Douk-hobors. When we were in the west we saw some of these gentry, and we were told that the women worked the farms while the men hired out. The young men did not register under the mobilization act, and they were waiting around to take the jobs of other young men who enlisted in the active service forces. As labour gets scarcer, no doubt many of these Doukhobors will be able to get positions. I do not think that is a situation which ought to obtain in Canada. I do not know just what the provincial law is in British Columbia, but perhaps the minister will be prepared to give us details of the provincial laws that bar certain people from voting. We shall want to know about the Japanese and how many soldier Japanese will be permitted to vote. There will be other questions of a similar nature.
I mentioned the Doukhobors. A young man who comes forward to vote, certain other conditions prevailing, will lose his right to postponement of military service. Therefore he is not apt to come forward to vote. What about his father andi mother, his cousins, his sisters and his aunts? Are they to be allowed to vote in Saskatchewan, we shall say? I raise the question and* I want some information. A young man will not fight; he will not come forward to register, but his whole family will vote. I know it is a difficult matter to deal with, but this has been the position ever since these people came here. Then there are the Mennonites. Personally I do not know much about them.
I read with a great deal of interest the orders in council which relate to these conscientious objectors. I must say that the legal interpretation which I put upon these is not the same as has been put upon them heretofore by both parties, but it may be that that has been done for the purpose of avoiding trouble. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. There is a good, deal of truth in that old saying. You can say that a man must work, but it is pretty hard to make him work. There is the celebrated case in the English law reports dealing with the opera singer, about which the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) spoke. \ ou can restrain her from singing for somebody else, but you just cannot make her sing for you. There are physical
Plebiscite Act

limitations about these things, and it may be that the interpretation that has been given in days gone by to some of these orders in council with respect to conscientious objectors has been given for the purpose of saving trouble to those in authority. I am not urging anything; I am just looking for information. If we have to have this plebiscite bill, let us have it and get it over with and get on with the war.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, in rising
to speak on this plebiscite bill at this stage I find myself still tremendously confused as to why we are now facing the responsibility of passing such a bill as this seems to be. I am still confused over whether the people realize what they are voting for. I have tried to think my way through it. I have read many statements that have been made, particularly by the Prime Minister; I have studied not only the statements he made in the past few days but statements he made some lime ago, and I am still confused. Perhaps I am not very brilliant, but I maintain that if I am confused over the issue, there are a lot of other people in Canada who are confused over it too.
I recall that last fall the Prime Minister, speaking on the issue of military service for overseas, made this statement in the house on November 12, 1941, rising to a question of privilege. I believe the press at that tune were pressing him in respect to an all-out war effort, and as reported at page 4321 of Hansard of November 12, 1941, the Prime Minister used these words:
I want it to be distinctly understood that so far as the principle of compulsory selective national service is concerned for Canada, m Canada, I stand for that principle. I have never taken any other stand. It is the position that I have held all along. It has been applied in connection with military training and applied in a number of other directions 1 might mention. How much further it will be applied the house will learn as the government takes its decisions on that matter.
But so far as conscription for service overseas is concerned in the armed forces of Canada, that question was submitted to the people of Canada at the last general election, an election which was held in war time, and in which the leaders of nil political parties made their statements to the electorate, and the people of Canada decided against conscription for overseas service. So far as I am concerned, without any consultation of the people on that subject, I do not intend to take the responsibility of supporting any policy of conscription for service overseas.
That is a clear and definite statement. I have nothing to say against it. It is bold; it is open; it cannot be misunderstood.
The question that is confusing me to-day is whether the people of Canada are now to be asked to vote on that issue which the Prime

Minister said he would submit to the country. The reason why I am confused is this, that when the Prime Minister was speaking in the house the other day on the same subject he said, as reported at page 908 of Hansard of February 25:
Hon. members have been talking about conscription, about no conscription and the like. That is not the issue in this plebiscite.
If that is not the issue in this plebiscite, in view of the Prime Minister's statement last fall that he would not bring in conscription for overseas service until he had consulted the people, I would ask this question: After this-plebiscite is disposed of, when the government decides to bring in conscription for overseas service, are we to have another plebiscite? Is the Prime Minister then to go to the country on that issue? I believe that is a fair question based upon these two statements of the Prime Minister which I find confusing, with the plebiscite bill in its present form and the question framed as it appears in the bill. I think the minister or the Prime Minister should answer that question while we are in committee, and answer it definitely so that the people will understand.	_	_
Another reason for my confusion is the statement that was made by the Prime Minister, in that same speech, on February 25, as reported at page 914 of Hansard:
We are simply asking to be given freedom to make an untrammeled decision and to come to parliament with that decision. Let my hon. friends beep that in mind, that before any measure can be passed in this parliament, mo matter what it relates to, conscription or anything else, it has to get the support of a majority of the House of Commons and the ministry has to consider very carefully every aspect of the question which will bear upon the situation in presenting any measure to parliament.
After this plebiscite is disposed of, the government has not even then received from the people an expression of their feeling with respect to conscription for overseas service, and I ask this further question: Suppose another plebiscite is submitted to the country and the Prime Minister desires to bring in conscription for overseas service; am I to understand from this statement by the Prime Minister-and if language means anything i't must mean this-that a measure will still be submitted to parliament to be accepted or rejected by this house?
I rose while the house was in committee to ask this one specific question: Are we to understand that irrespective of this plebiscite the people are still to be consulted with respect to compulsory military service for overseas and that a special measure will be brought down to this house for that purpose? I

Plebiscite Act
should like an answer. I know I made a speech, but I asked a question, and it is a question the whole country is asking.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not
think there is any mystery about the government's position in the matter. At the present time the government is restricted with respect to recommending to the house, should it so desire, a course of action with regard to conscription, in virtue of commitments which have been previously made. If release from those commitments is given by the electorate of Canada, the government will feel itself entirely free to consider the question of conscription on its merits in the light of all the eircumstatnces existing at the time, to recommend its course to parliament, and to have parliament deal with the matter as it does with any other matter brought before it. There is no different attitude assumed with respect to this one question from that with regard to any other.


Ernest George Hansell: Shall we need another
plebiscite then to find out whether we are to have conscription?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope to
heaven not.


Ernest George Hansell: I did not hear the Prime Minister's answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say I hope not. And I say that I cannot imagine any circumstances under which it would be thought of.


Ernest George Hansell: My contention is that
the present bill does not ask the people whether they want conscription for overseas service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are a lot of things which the present bill does not ask the people, because we want to ask them one question and one question only. If we had wished to ask twenty questions, we would have inserted twenty questions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is	it not
a fact that under the terms of the War Measures Act the government can bring in total conscription at any time if it so desires ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it is a
fact. I made that very clear the other day. The legal power is there, but the government in this matter feels, and feels rightly, that it is under a moral obligation because of certain pledges which were made in the past and during the last general election not to use its legal power to enlist men compulsorily for service overseas.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: When the bill came down in its original form, the house raised serious objection to the generality of the bill in the form that it was in, and I think those who raised this objection were quite right. As the bill then was, it was possible to take a plebiscite in this country merely by the issue of a proclamation; and our committee was instructed, I believe from both sides of the house, to alter this particular phase. I think the committee will agree that this bill has now been made a particular one, since clause 3 now provides:
This act shall be limited to the taking of a plebiscite on a question to be set out in the ballot papers in the following words and form.
The matter of the wording of the question in the plebiscite ballot also came up during the discussion, and the committee was informed, and I believe the majority agreed, that we had no power to deal in committee with the matter of the question. Since the question was presented to us in that form, the committee was not allowed to alter that, and we had to abide by the decision of the majority.
I must say that I, too, am still somewhat confused by the wording. I would certainly like to have it changed, and the direct question put to the people, whether they are willing to have a complete conscription of the accumulated wealth, the natural resources and the industry of Canada along with complete conscription of man-power.
I was surprised to find the regulations so copious. About sixty pages of them, for the most part adapted from the Dominion Elections Act, were considered. As regards the objection to section 15 of the regulations, I believe the regulation states:
Immediately after the issue of the proolamaJ tion, the chief plebiscite officer shall cause the ballot papers to be issued at the plebiscite held under the Dominion Plebiscite Act, 1942, and these regulations, to be printed on both sides, consecutively numbered, perforated, 'and bound in books of twenty-five, and furnished in sufficient quantities to each returning officer.
It is a matter of doubt whether the term "ballot papers" includes the counterfoil or not. I do not believe there was any intention at any time that the ballot should be numbered, and I feel quite sure that, had that been the impression of the committee, such regulation would have been immediately amended.
Mr. MoLARTY: Would my hon. friend allow me to interject a remark? It is not to differ with him; it is to agree with him. If he will refer to the ballot papers under the elections act and also the regulations under the plebiscite act, he will find the numbering
Plebiscite Act

is identical, which, as he suggested himself, was the case as it was presented to the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not a fact, though, that the form of the ballot paper is merely directory, while the regulation is mandatory, as a matter of law?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Probably the form following the regulation must comply with the regulation to be a proper form; and if the forms under the election act and under the regulations under the plebiscite bill are compared, it will be found that they are identical. There is no difference at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes, there is.


George Hugh Castleden: Thank you. There were one or two minor changes. One to which I would refer, is the matter of leaving the polling stations open. According to the Dominion Elections Act, polling stations are to be open from eight in the morning until six in the evening. I should like to have seen them kept open for the plebiscite from eight in the morning to eight in the evening, so that many thousands of workers in the factories and elsewhere can exercise their right to vote. An amendment was adopted providing that polling stations should be open until seven o'clock in the evening, which is a step in the right direction.
We have spent far too long on this matter of the plebiscite. However, now that this administration and this parliament have decided to go ahead with it, I hope it will be proceeded with speedily and the matter disposed of without delay. The people of Canada are looking askance at what is happening here, particularly at the time which is being spent. They must feel pretty much like soldiers who have been watching the enemy arm, seeing him approach, and about to attack. Then they are told by some brass-hat to go and polish their shoes. I hope we shall get through rapidly with this bill and have the plebiscite over and done with.


Gordon Graydon: Supplementing the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton, may I ask the minister whether there is any good reason why the time for polling could not be extended to a little later in the evening. It seems to me that many of these sections were drawn by those who do not fully understand. what the working man has to contend with as regards his hours of leisure. Do hon. members realize that many working people have difficulty) because of the limited number of hours that stores and offices are open, in finding time to attend to their outside business

affairs? I think this is one place where we might well make a concession to the wageearning section of our population, by extending a little the time for voting. In some sections where, perhaps, in a general election the results of the polling are of great importance, there may be some reason for restricting the number of hours, but with all possible emphasis I urge the government to reconsider the period for voting, particularly with a view to its further extension in the evening. I should like to see it so arranged that our working men will not have to line up at the booths during the last part of the day in order to vote. These are some of the busiest people in the country and they should be given proper consideration. I make that suggestion in a friendly and constructive spirit.


Norman Alexander McLarty: There is one section of the elections act which is incorporated in the regulations under the plebiscite act. The hon. member for Yorkton referred to the discussion we had in the committee. We did extend the hours from eight to six to the hours from eight to seven. In addition, I might point out that one matter which was impressed upon the committee was that each working man had two hours off with pay in order to be able to vote at any time during the election, and that will be incorporated in the regulations under the plebiscite act. It is in the elections act. That was one of the factors which were impressed upon the committee, and it will avoid the unfortunate situation of all having to vote at one time, as the hon. member has suggested.


Gordon Graydon: I am not so sure that is a complete answer to the problem. If I recollect -it is only an offhand recollection-a man working in a factory must make application to his employer to get time off. Arrangements must be made on that basis, and my suggestion would avoid the difficulties which might arise between employer and employee with respect to that request. I cannot see what great damage would result from keeping the polls open another hour, because, after all, some of these workers, particularly in war works, and in places far distant from their homes, have much difficulty in taking the two hours off. Most hon. members realize that. If the workers are a long piece away they must get transportation, and it is much easier for them to vote at the latter part of the day either after supper or when they are coming home. Moreover, it would be more convenient for them. I wish the minister would consider that point. I may be entirely wrong in my contention, 'but I am quite honest in urging it.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Let me point out the difficulty that will arise in rural Canada,

Plebiscite Act
especially if the vote is taken, early in May. The farmers will be labouring under tremendous handicaps this year. There will be a great shortage of help, and there are very few farmers who can take the two hours off to vote in the busy season, in the seeding month of the year. If another hour were added, extending the time to eight o'clock, it would help to get out a greater number of farmers to vote, especially in the rural sections of western Canada. Most people do not quit work until late in the evening and if they had the extra hour many more people could go to vote.


Mr. FAIR:: I am sorry that the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), the prospective Minister of Agriculture when the Conservatives get into office, forgot about the farming population. Perhaps, when he becomes minister, he will forget the farmers just as much then as he does to-day, but that will only be in keeping with the practice of the present Minister of Agriculture. I rise to protest, as I protested as far back as 1938, against the discrimination that is being carried out in certain provinces-in four of them- against a particular class of citizens who find themselves in very unfortunate circumstances. I refer to section 10 (k) of the regulations covering ordinary voters:
in any province, every person who is^ an inmate of an institution which is maintained by any government or municipality for the housing .a.nd maintenance of the poor, if such person is by the law of that province disqualified from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of that province, and did not serve in the military, naval or air forces of Canada in the war of 1914-1918 or in the war that began in September, 1939.
I am very sorry that this is in effect in the -provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and British Columbia. Those -hon. members who were on the elections and franchise committee when we revised the -present election act in 1936, 1937 and 1938 will remember that we had a heated discussion on that problem, and in 1939 I brought in an amendment to the elections act which was defeated. We are living in a democratic country, at least under the forms of democracy, and I regret that the people of those provinces, and this parliament, have not seen fit to change those regulations so that we might have the benefits of democracy extended to people who are in our poor institutions. As I have pointed out on- -other occasions, the old age pensioners are demanding pensions because they have been legally ro-b-bed during their years of productive activity, and I believe that if we investigated the cases of a number of those who are in the institutions to which I have referred, we should find exactly
the same position existing. To-day I am asking again, -before this -bill proceeds m-uch further, that parliament take into consideration the plight of those who are in these institutions and give them the right to vote. There is no reason why that right should be denied them. These regulations are manmade, and surely we who are boasting of and fighting for democracy should put enough of our democratic speeches into practice and give these people the right to vote on this and other questions hereafter.


George Black: As a member of the special committee I quite agree with the hon. member for Yorkton -that it was never the intention o-f the committee that the ballot papers should be numbered. It is true that in section 15 of the regulations it is provided that the plebiscite officers shall cause the ballot papers to be used at the plebiscite to be printed on both sides, consecutively numbered, perforated and bound, and so on. But if you will look at subsection 2 of section 15 you will find it stated that such ballot papers shall be according to form number 15 and shall *bear the question to be submitted at the plebiscite in the form set out in the said proclamation. Turning to form 15, there is no numbering on the ballot, -but there is on the form a replica of the back of the -ballot- this is on page 76 of the regulations-and- the stub and counterfoil are properly numbered. But the ballot is not numbered and it was never the intention of the committee to have it numbered. N-or was it by any oversight that section 15 of the regulations was passed by the committee, because the voter is protected by the form of ballot as shown in form 15.
The minister, who was chairman of the committee, has made a general statement. He gave us a memorandum of the method of taking the votes of service voters, and under the terms of that memorandum an officer is designated to take the votes of the members of each unit. It is -provided that a ballot paper shall be handed to the voter in tire same form as that used in Canada, in an inner envelope, and he will go to a compartment and mark his ballot and so on. There is no provision whereby the returning officer, or the commissioned officer as the case may be, will initial the counterfoil on the ballot or that the counterfoil will be removed before the ballot is put in the envelope. I expect regulations will be passed to cover that, but this does not -cover it.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think my hon. friend will recall that that was explained by the chief electoral officer. The secrecy of the ballot is being retained in the case of both the service
Plebiscite Act

voter and the ordinary voter. I think my hon. friend will recollect that what happens is that the outer envelope is torn off when, it is forwarded in groups of one hundred, and the inner envelope is put in the ballot box. I agree with my hon. friend on the other point, namely, that the only number appearing on the ballot paper is on the counterfoil, and as explained by the chief electoral officer, that portion of the ballot paper placed in the box will have no number on it. That, I agree, is the reason why it passed the committee.


Angus MacInnis: I rise to a point of order rather than to say anything on this bill. Is it not customary, when a bill is in committee after second reading, that we deal with it section by section? Otherwise I do not think we shall ever be able to give this bill the kind of scrutiny it should get.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of
order, as a rule we are all supposed to keep our discussion within the section that' is before the committee. If, for example, there is a question of the qualification of a Canadian service voter, it is not permissible to talk about it on a section dealing with another matter. But we are now on section 1, short title, and it has always been the practice in this committee of the whole to discuss under that section any matter pertaining to the bill.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fournier, Hull):: I understand that on section 1 hon.
members are given considerable latitude. When we come to the following sections I shall expect them to keep within the rules.


John George Diefenbaker: The leader of the opposition urged the necessity of having those who vote on this plebiscite produce their national registration certificate. The minister has taken the stand, and the committee agreed with the view, that to do so might deprive some people of their vote. As an alternative I suggest to the minister that as to those voters whose right to vote depends upon their being vouched for, in order to guard against the possibility of wrongdoing, the production by such persons of their national registration certificate be made a condition precedent. In that way any suggestion of the possibility of a racket being perpetrated would be entirely obviated. I can see no reason why those whose names are not on the voters' list should not be required to produce their registration certificate as an additional safeguard to those set out in section 7 of the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: The other day the minister who is piloting this legislation said that he was open-minded-something everyone knows; we appreciate him for it-and that this bill is not like the laws of the Medes and Persians.

I am not yet convinced that this legislation is opportune. I have listened to everything that has been said about it, or what I did not hear have read in Hansard. Fine speeches have been made since this legislation was introduced, but I have not found a single argument that convinces me in its favour. The question is not to submit a plebiscite to the people of Canada. It is to assure and complete home defence.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, on January 24, a journalist came to me requesting an interview with respect to the plebiscite. I told him that it was impossible to give any definite opinion until the wording was made known, and that I was opposed to any high-pressure or uncalled-for publicity. I said that I favoured free public comprehension and expression, and that I expected the plebiscite would not be after the pattern of Hitler's plebiscite in Austria. I said that the defence of Canada should be completed and assured before our men were conscripted for overseas.
On February 22, the day after the last black-out in the province of Quebec, Miss M. V. Cummings, secretary of the civil protection committee of Quebec city, was interviewed by the press. The [DOT] following is a report:
Throughout the province, Miss Cummings said, especially in the northern Quebec area of Lake St. John and the lower St. Lawrence district, officials reported that everything had run off smoothly. Mies Cummings added that "it is particularly gratifying to see that the most vulnerable points of the province have had such a marked success."
Speaking with respect to the victory loan on Friday, February 20, Premier Godbout of Quebec is reported in La Presse to have said that the province of Quebec is in imminent peril.
One of the most interesting dailies published on this continent is undoubtedly the New York Times. On the front page of the magazine section of the issue of yesterday, March 1, I read this:
But among many prominent officials a number of illusions still exist. They are dangerous illusions, almost as dangerous as those mentioned above, and nowhere are they more evident than in Washington.
The first of these illusions is that since we are the richest and potentially the strongest people in the world we cannot lose the war.

Plebiscite Act
This, of course, is said of the United States.
The second is that we can win the war without using our very best men in government, regardless of party.
The third is that we can win the war without scrapping a number of high military officers and naval commanders who are still thinking in terms of classic defence rather than of modern offence.
The fourth is that the nation will fight its best on a diet of optimistic news and that it is necessary for our government, in order to confuse its enemies, to confuse its own people and its friends.
The fifth is that we can beat the axis on the forty-hour week.
Nothing is more fallacious in time of war than the illusion that money is power. We may be able to solve most of our difficulties with it in peace time, but one cannot stop a tank with a hundred-thousand dollar bill. Even the official dollars-and-oents war production figures dispel this illusion.
The article is headed, "Are We Awake?" and was written by James B. Reston.
On the first page of the editorial section in the same issue there is a map of Asia and the Pacific ocean. Below the map twelve strategic places in the Japanese drive are mentioned. They are as follows:
1.	Thailand submits to the Japanese, December 8.
2.	After siege Hong Kong surrenders, December 25.
3.	British-controlled Sarawak falls, January 1.	_	>
4.	Japanese troops march into Manila, January 2.
5.	Celebes invaded by the Japanese, January 12.
6.	New Britain attacked by Japanese, January 23.
7.	Conquest of Malaya is completed, January 31.
8.	Japanese occupy Amboina naval base, February 7.
9.	Sumatra, flanking Java, invaded, February 14.
10.	Fortress of Singapore surrenders, February 15.
11.	Japanese open struggle for Bali, February 20.
12.	Rangoon is menaced by Japanese, February 27.
On the front page of the issue of Le Soleil of Quebec for February 26 there is a picture of Mr. Dies, the well-known United States congressman, who has discovered Japanese maps showing an invasion plan of the United States through Alaska and northwestern Canada. He states as a fact that those maps were found in the possession of a Japanese spy in the United States. Mr. Dies is photographed with those maps in his hand.
I do not wish to say anything of a secret nature. I wish merely to refresh the memories of hon. members by using clippings which, with few exceptions, have appeared in our own newspapers.
This I have taken from the Ottawa Citizen of February 24:
Canada within range of bombers from Norway. Young Belgian artillery officer declares nazi four-motored machines could make trip easily.
The Ottawa Journal of December 10 contained a dispatch to the effect that Canada was only twelve hours from German air bases. These are the words appearing in the article: Air Commodore Albert de Niverville addressing a luncheon here to-day-
This was in Montreal.
-said Canada was about twelve hours from German air bases. While Halifax is half a day from Brest, Bordeaux and German air bases, our Pacific coast itself must face a new danger resulting from Japan's entry into the conflict.
Several hon. members have mentioned the worry which exists to-day in Australia because of the Japanese coming closer and closer. But that is not all. I hold in my hand a Canadian Press dispatch dated at Wellington, New Zealand, January 25:
British-United. States reply heartens Antipodes.
Prime Minister Peter Fraser said to-day that New Zealand had received a heartening response to pleas to the United States and Britain for aid in the Pacific war. This was the first official disclosure that New Zealand had joined Australia in such appeals.
On June 18 of last year-and I mentioned this fact the other day in the house-at a meeting here in Ottawa the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said that the need for men was immediate and urgent. He was referring to men for overseas. He asked for volunteers on two grounds, first that Canada could do no less than the British people who stood so bravely on the front line and, second, that men had been pledged to Great Britain. When I asked him for supplementary information, as always he was vague.
During last summer I took the trouble to make a scrap book of news items. I did this for a little over two months, from the end of June to the beginning of September, during which time many important events occurred. One of them was the quick about-turn of Russia. At that time, because of a statement by the Minister of National Defence which appeared in the press, it was stated that the number of men required overseas from Canada was approximately 100,000. According to the papers of February 11 there has been a big jump. I have here the headlines of an article which was published in our contemporaries here in Ottawa. The Minister of National Defence may have made some arrangement with Sir John Dill while he was here or with
Plebiscite Act

Mr. Churchill, because this article states, "Ralston says forces require 193,000 men during present year." That is twice as many as were contemplated during last summer.
There are some people who may be termed armchair strategists because they contend that Canada is menaced. There is a gentleman familiar to all members of parliament who are war veterans. I refer to Mr. Walker, the head of the legion. The Montreal Gazette of February 27 had this to say:
Coasts of Canada fronting danger.
Head of legion, Alex Walker, compares situation to Australia.
Denies scare mongering.
Tragedy facing antipodes real for this dominion unless it prepares itself.
We have been told that submarines have been off the coast of Nova Scotia, and we know that Jap submarines have shelled the coast of California. There is one thing that I cannot understand. If England, which is smaller than a handkerchief on the map when compared with Canada, considers that 4,000,000 men are not enough for her defence, who will say that half a million men would be too many for the defence of Canada? Many times I had occasion to discuss this matter with my very dear and lamented friend, the former Minister of Justice, Mr. Lapointe. One time when he was away one of the acting ministers decided to send men of the mounted police overseas. More than that, applicants for positions in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had to consent to serving overseas before they were accepted in the force. When I brought Mr. Lapointe's attention to the matter he wrote me the following letter which has been made public and which is on record:
I have your letter of the 3rd August enclosing copy of a page of Hansard and of a communication addressed by you on July 31 to Mr. S. T. Wood, Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I have given consideration to your representations regarding certain questions appearing on the form of enlistment in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and concerning the applicants' consent to serve overseas. As you are aware, the question has been settled in the way you wished, and consent to serve overseas is no longer required of applieants for enlistment in the R.C.M.P.
Believe me, dear Mr. Pouliot,
Yours sincerely,
Ernest Lapointe.
That letter was marked "personal", as were all his letters. When I saw Mr. Lapointe about it I told him that that must have been a clerical error, ahd he gave me permission to publish the letter.
Le Canada, is a strong government paper, and a brilliant one too. It is published in Montreal, and I should like to quote an 
editorial which appeared in the issue of February 23, as follows:
The out-and-out advocates of conscription for overseas service should awaken to reality and understand that it would 'be unwise to deprive ourselves of our defenders at the very moment when we are more exposed to attack than ever before. So long as Canada could be considered secure from any attempt at invasion, it was natural that we should contribute to strengthen the United Kingdom, our strongest bulwark against the undertakings of Germany. But it is no longer so. The western part of our country is to-day an area of war. Further striking successes by the Japanese would place us in still graver peril. It must therefore be expected that the government wishes to guard against this danger and will inform members of parliament of the measures it has taken. The secrecy of the proceedings will prevent any advantage accruing to the enemy. On the other hand, * our representatives will know exactly what is being done and will be able, if necessary, to advise the government regarding the nature of our defence preparations.
In the New York Times of March 1 there is a dispatch from Mr. P. J. Philip of Ottawa, dated February 28. This is quite interesting, and it reads as follows:
Coast peril shifts policy in Canada.
Idea that war must be won in Europe is shelved-Pacific strategy role forecast.
Japanese transfer plan.
Board set up to move British Columbia's aliens.
This progress is only on paper. When I first read it I was surprised to see that the government still intended to proceed with the bill. "Joint defence is relevant." Surely my chief, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), remembers what was said by the member for Temiscouata at one of the last sittings of the session that ended in August, 1940. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) and I were the first to speak about the need for signing a war treaty with the United States, but at that time we were told that it was not an opportune time to mention matters like that. Not long afterward the Prime Minister had an interview with the President of the United States, and matters were arranged for mutual defence. In the Gazette of February 27 there is a front-page item which reads:
Canada to aid U.S.
Fight any invader on Pacific coasts.
Trainees would go.
Prime Minister says he would amend law if necessary.
Answers Hanson query.
Opposition leader poses case of attack on Seattle or Alaska.

Plebiscite Act
Then follows a summary of what was said in the house. Everyone will admit that there is a threat to our country. I have never been fearful; fear is a feeling that I ignore completely; it is unknown to me. But I am much worried and concerned about the future of this country so long as we forget that this Canada of ours is on mother earth rather than on the planet Mars. Some people seem to be just as indifferent to the fate of this country as though Canada were on the planet Mars. We are surrounded by fearful enemies and we need some protection in this country. The Department of National Defence is nil with the exception of the deputy minister of militia and his secretary who are two good men. There may be a few others such as Brigadier Pope. He is a brass hat, but he is a good man. These were really good men; and capable, efficient military men are very few. The Montreal Gazette of Monday, January 26, contained an editorial about Hong Kong, in which there were some learned remarks about it, some of them good. The New York Times of March 1 said:
Hawaii's defences held inadequate.
Situation not improved since December 7, but more forces are declared required.
It cannot happen again.
Pacific war seen reaching stage where foe might move on islands.
Here again is the Toronto Telegram, from which I have already quoted. In its editorial of January 23 it mentions that I had asked for the resignation of the Minister of National Defence on account of the unfortunate Hong Kong affair. Then we have Mr. Drew-what is his first name? I do not remember.


An hon. MEMBER:: George.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is always an honest George in Ontario. George Drew was chosen as counsel for the leader of the opposition in the Hong Kong probe, and speaking of that probe the Montreal Gazette says:
There remains the inescapable feeling that secrecy must always beget the feeling that this inquiry was a "government affair". No better means could be found of dissipating this faint distrust than the appointment of Colonel Drew as opposition counsel. Not only was he the initiator, one might even say the source, of the opposition's stand on this issue, but he is of all Canadians now in civil life, one of the best qualified to judge a military question.
I come now to a good Liberal paper, Le Soleil of Quebec. In its editorial of February 23 it complains of the fact that the probe will not be public and goes on to say that it does not see the usefulness of such a procedure unless the investigation is to be based on new
facts as well as on charges and admissions heard in the House of Commons. Le Soleil adds that it is necessary to have a declaration from the government on the matter and asks:
Is it left to the discretion of the tribunal to limit the scope of the inquiry and information promised to parliament and the nation?
I come now to a very fanatical paper, the Ottawa Journal. I shall read only the first paragraph of two articles, one on George Drew and one on my humble self, and members will see how blind are these nasty Tories. I quote first from the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, January 22, 1942, from an editorial entitled "The Rights of a Critic," which says in part.
Col. George Drew, Conservative leader in Ontario, states a truism when he reasserts his right to criticize government activities even in war. It is necessary, however, to maintain this unquestioned democratic right against some who feel, quite honestly, that even well-founded and constructive criticism is "subversive" and to be deplored.
There would be nothing wrong with that. But here is the first paragraph of an article dedicated to the Liberal member for Temis-couata, who had asked for the resignation of the Minister of National Defence, who pTobably leases some floor space in the Ottawa Journal's building. This article in the Journal's issue of February 20, headed, "Sort of thing that hurts parliament," reads in part:
On the principle that one cannot argue from the particular to the general it would be wrong to condemn parliament for the antics of Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot. Yet Mr. Pouliot's silly sub-amendment to the speech from the throne, asking the house to condemn the government for "contemplating" conscription, is precisely the sort of thing which leaves many people contemptuous of parliament. What is wrong, it is asked-what is wrong with a democratic institution which, at this time, seems powerless to put a stop to such palpable tomfoolery?
I take great comfort in the thought that in every province, particularly in Ontario, provincial governments are enlarging their lunatic asylums, and I have no doubt that there will be room in one of the new wards for the fellow who wrote that.
The fall of Hong Kong was deeply felt by all. There is one thing that happened there, and that is that our soldiers were sent without equipment and without ammunition. Of course, some responsibility might rest with the Minister of National Defence. But he was not alone. There was a very high officer, there is now, who was inspector-general of the western command, and he is no less than Tory Senator Griesbach. How could our men have left for Hong Kong without the approval of the inspector-general of the army? My fear is that the appointment of George Drew
Plebiscite Act

on the Hong Kong probe is precisely to give a whitewash to Senator Griesbach. I see the leader of the opposition laughing. I would not have expected him to do it because what I say is the truth. He knows I am not afraid to tell the truth, and I say that the man who is responsible must be held guilty for such a thing occurring. It is not the quartermaster-general who should be punished for that. It is the inspector-general of the western command, who is a Tory senator, and he should be fired at once, and moreover, should be court-martialed.
I have another clipping here headed, "Bennett explains fall of Singapore." This was the commander of the Australian imperial force in Malaya, and he blames the fall of Singapore on the lack of water, heavy bombing, and greatly superior numbers. The British had no means of flying from Singapore.
Then here is a caricature by Low, the celebrated cartoonist. This cartoon was published in the Ottawa Citizen of February 11. It shows a silk-hatted politician with a book in his hand, and beside him in the jungle handling a machine gun are two Australian soldiers. The cartoon has the politician saying:
No reinforcements yet-but I'm sent to read you this parliamentary debate proving:
(1)	That Air-Chief-Marshal Blimp is a great statesman;
(2)	That there are no lessons to be learned from all this;
(3)	That Blimpapore will be defended to the
last. .	*
Here is another article which I find in that Tory paper, the Ottawa Journal, on page 3 of its issue of February 27. The article is headed "Lady Brooke-Popham blames inertia for Singapore fall."
Here is a gentleman from New Brunswick, not Viscount Bennett, but Lord Beaverbrook himself, who is quoted in the New York Herald-Tribune of June 9, 1941, as saying:
Adolf Hitler had "given youth its head" in his plans and preparations, and Britain now found itself confronted "with a mentality which makes rings around many of our old ideas", he said.
Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, High Commissioner for Great Britain in Canada, made an appeal in Toronto the other day to send Canadians overseas. Here is what this gentleman said when he set foot on Canadian shores, according to a dispatch by Mr. John Marshall, a very able journalist and president of the press gallery. This article appeared in the Windsor Daily Star of April 4, 1941. Speaking of the British people, for whom I have a deep admiration because I know them well-the

only ones who do not deserve admiration are the British politicians with the exception of Mr. Churchill-Mr. MacDonald said:	,
Even if they were fighting alone, they couldn't be beaten. But, they are not alone.
Et cetera. And he said that our help was superfluous. But I have something still better in my hand, and it is-again-that Tory paper, the Ottawa Journal. Some interesting news is contained in its five o'clock edition, July 3, 1940:
Want Canadians to halt nazis if they land.
Dominion troops have "more novel conception of warfare".
London. July 3-(CP)-Lord Mottistone, who as "Jack" Seely commanded the Canadian cavalry in the first great war, suggested in the House of Lords to-day that Canadian troops should be chosen to engage the enemy if he lands in Britain because of their "more novel conception of warfare".
He recommended the Canuck soldiers not because he served with them in the last war for 3J years "and so knew their value", but because amongst these Canadian divisions-and this also applies to other divisions overseas where there are wider spaces-there are people with more novel conceptions of warfare.
Lord Mottistone said he had made the suggestion to a Canadian officer with a distinguished record, who had replied "that just suits me".
What did Sir Stafford Cripps, the present Lord Privy Seal, say the other day? Coming from Russia, he told us many things which are very interesting; he endorsed our victory loan, and he complained that a full effort was not being made at the present time in Great Britain. Mr. Eden, and also many labour leaders, spoke along the same line.
Some years ago, in this honourable house, sitting in committee of the whole, I objected strongly to red tape. Here is what the member for Temiseouata said about red tape, Hansard, February 22, 1937, page 1124:
Red tape must disappear from the Department of National Defence. I am in favour of a good army to defend our country, but I want no red tape and I want no other people than good Canadians to defend our own country.
And then:
I blame the bureaucracy that has been established there

In the Department of National Defence.
-a long time. . . . There are some in the department who were hiding themselves when the others were fighting-
In the last war.
-and now they are the bosses and try to run the whole show. Enough of that; it must stop. Representatives of the people must bring them to their senses.
Previously I had said, at page 1120:
Some people are fond of brass hats and so on; I do not care for them. . . .

Plebiscite Act
Here is the definition which the member for Temiscouata gave at that time, as quoted in the Windsor Star:
These people in the Department of National Defence cannot learn -warfare. They must be trying out their penmanship all the time. Everybody in that department, from the chief of staff to the last appointed stenographer, must also be a typist. We hear a lot about that- most foolish; most stupid-and it continues like that.
This we call red tape. What is red tape? Red tape consists of a lot of formalities carried out just to show the importance of the one who performs them. Red tape is useless, but it is made use of for a purpose. It is carried out to show that the man who executes the formalities is the only man who could do this well. In the civil service my experience , ha.s been that the simplest things, the easiest to understand, are made the most difficult in order to show the ability and the wonderful genius of an ass. Hon. members laugh, but that is the case. Let us take the fellow who is stupid, and who cannot do anything well. He says, "I will make myself important." Then he assumes a solemn air, and attempts to convince his minister that he is the only being on earth who can do a certain thing. Sometimes he is believed; sometimes the officials do not see the ears of the ass. There is a lot of that, but I shall not insist upon it.
This is enough for the moment. I want to put this on record as a preface to what I am going to say and to move afterwards.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
point out to hon. members, that this section of the bill provides the only opportunity for discussing the regulations. On the point of regulation 15-


Norman Alexander McLarty: May I, Mr. Chairman,
differ on this with the leader of the opposition.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); That is my understanding of the rules.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I believe that under subsection 2 of section 9 the regulations can be discussed.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); Possibly.
Mr. McLARTY; The clause which refers specifically to the regulations being in accordance with the Dominion Elections Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Referring now to the question which I raised this afternoon with regard to the numbering of the ballots, I desire again to make my position clear on that point. It will be recalled, sir, that the minister took refuge in the form of the ballot, which appears as form number 15 of the regulations, in which the numbering is on the stub and the counterfoil only. As I said this afternoon, however, anything relating to the form of the ballot is directive
only and not mandatory. I refer the committee to section 28 of the Dominion Elections Act, to which I believe I referred this afternoon. Subsection 1 is as follows:
All ballots shall be of the same description and as nearly alike as possible. The ballot of each voter shall be a printed paper, in this act called a ballot paper, on which the names, addresses and occupations of the candidates alphabetically arranged in the order of their surnames, shall, subject as hereafter in this section provided, be printed exactly as they are set out in the nomination paper; the ballot paper shall have a counterfoil and a stub-
This is the part which I think is pertinent. -and there shall be a line of perforations between the ballot and the counterfoil and between the counterfoil and the stub, the whole as in form No. 32.
Then, referring to subsection 5:
The ballot papers shall be numbered on the back of the stub and the counterfoil, the same number being printed or written on the stub as on the counterfoil-
It will be observed that in section 15 of the regulations it is provided, by subsection 1, that:
Immediately after the issue of the proclamation, the chief plebiscite officer shall cause the ballot papers to be used at the plebiscite held under the Dominion Plebiscite Act, 1942, and these regulations, to be printed on both sides, consecutively numbered, perforated, and bound in books of twenty-five, and furnished in sufficient quantities to each returning officer.
I suggest that after the words "consecutively numbered" in line 35 these words be inserted :
on the back of the stub and counterfoil only.
Then, I believe, it will be in conformity with the Dominion Elections Act. I urge the minister to adopt that amendment.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Chairman, there is not the slightest objection to doing so. I would have mentioned the matter before, but I thought that perhaps opportunity would be taken under subsection (2) of section 9, of discussing the regulations. The suggestion I have to make to meet the criticism-it was not a severe one-of the leader of the opposition was to insert in the regulations the necessary amendment. I do not think we can move it here as an amendment, because the regulations are not before the committee. But I would undertake that the amendment will be made to the regulations when they are passed. It is practically the same as the wording suggested by the leader of the opposition, but perhaps it makes it even more specific and removes it entirely from the realm of controversy. It is proposed that after the word "numbered" on page 19 of the regulations, to which the leader of the
Plebiscite Act

opposition has referred, we insert the following: "on the back of the stub and counterfoil, the same number to be printed on the stub as on the counterfoil." I think that is identical with what the leader of the opposition suggested, except for the last few words.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
rather redundant. Mine is a good deal better drafting.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think the hon. gentleman's is briefer, but perhaps this will meet the situation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We will leave it to the two draftsmen who are in the gallery and let them decide.


Mr. GRAHAM:: May I call attention to a principle set out in section 5 of the bill-


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member for Swift Current, but we are in committee of the whole, and seeing that we have extended the discussion I wonder whether the hon. member would feel that it might be in order to wait until we come to that section so that we may get on with some of the intervening ones. So far we have not covered a single section. Perhaps I must bear some measure of responsibility for that, but if we adopt the ordinary procedure in committee of the whole and deal with each section as we come to it, it will afford a more concentrated discussion of the merits of each section.


Roy Theodore Graham: I agree with the minister, but almost every other principle involved in the bill has been discussed under section 1.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a word, and this time my intention is not to speak at great length.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
Mr. LACOMBE:: What is the name of the writer?


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall give it to the minister.


Liguori Lacombe: What is the name of the camp?


Jean-François Pouliot: Brantford.


Liguori Lacombe: What is the name of the commanding officer?


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall give all that to my hon. friend later. An official of the Department of National Defence, Mr. Leon Trepanier, a former leader of the Montreal municipal council, complained on February 4th of the lack of system in the recruiting carried on in the province of Quebec. He declared that the rural districts were being stripped bare of young men and, in short, that the recruiting methods used were all wrong. I have noticed that in the county of Temis-couata. Still a large number of young men have enlisted in the army.
(Text) On January 14 last, I wrote to the Prime Minister as follows:
My dear Chief,-
I wish to draw your attention to attached marked copy of Hansard of November 12, 1941, page 4344, in which appears a statement from your colleague, the hon. Mr. Power, that he believed that information concerning the number of French Canadians who are serving in regiments that are not wholly French could be obtained.
I have sent you a copy of an article that I have published la9t summer about the war effort of the French Canadians and the number of enlistments in the three branches of the army.
It is of the utmost importance to get that information at the earliest possible opportunity. Our mutual and very dear friend, the late Mr. Plebiscite Act

Lapointe had also asked for that information which he found most important to get under the present circumstances, especially when the Tories intend to divide the country by making a campaign against the French Canadians.
At the same time, I take the liberty to send you a copy of a letter from Mr. Adrian Pouliot, Dean of the Faculty of Science of Laval university and President of the Permanent Committee of French Survival in America.
I hope that you will have no objection to give your kind attention to the matter and give definite instructions in order that such information is available at the earliest possible opportunity.
Unfortunately I have not the figures now, but I hope I shall get them in the near future.
Many things are said about the people from my province, and I will show how some people act with regard to Canadian unity. I have here an advertisement from the Windsor Star of February 21 last. It is over the name of a man named Wilkinson who is a shoe dealer. It reads:
It has been said through all the ages, that Nero fiddled while Borne burned, but some Canadians (so-called, only some of them) don't even fiddle.
This space contributed by Geo. H. Wilkinson, Ltd. in the interest of Canada's war loan.
Think how stupid it is.
Friends of mine in Windsor gave me some information about the enlistment of French Canadians in that district. According to the census of 1931, which is the latest available, in the three counties of Lambton, Kent and Essex the population was 268,319 and the number of French Canadians, 41,887. At the time that the Wilkinson advertisement was published in the Windsor Star a local regiment left for overseas, of which the French Canadians formed 35 per cent of the effective strength. Putting aside the United States citizens enlisted in that regiment, the French Canadians were at least 42 per cent of the total number. They are only 15J per cent of the population of the three counties. It seemed that those good fellow citizens should be treated better than that.
Some time I shall have an opportunity to discuss matters in connection with the navy. I sent a memorandum last year to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), but I have received no definite information about the matter.
At six o'clock I was saying I did not see any argument in favour of the plebiscite. All hon. members have been saying that we have made a promise to the people not to impose conscription. I admit that that promise was made, and that it was made in high quarters. But the point is not as to whether a promise

was made to the Canadian people. The question is: What is our duty to-day?


Mr. DUPUIS:: To win the war.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, and we are all for it. But we do not want to be caught napping if the enemies invade our country, just as has happened in so many parts of the world. We must have some kind of defence; we must have some kind of protection. I do not wish to frighten anybody, but I have quoted what is being said in many quarters. What I cannot understand is that nobody is paying any attention to this country; everything is being done for other countries. I cannot conceive it, and I regret it deeply. At any time this country can be invaded.
Hon. members from British Columbia have spoken along those lines, and rightly so. There were occasions when they spoke alone. I did not wish to interfere with them when they were arguing on behalf of British Columbia, but I could have argued for the shores of the St. Lawrence river, for the shores of Nova Scotifi, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and, in fact, for the whole country.
I am astounded that the most simple things, things that are based on common sense, are so hard to put into the heads of those in power. I cannot understand it. The more simple a thing is, the more difficult it is to have it accepted.
It is said that we shall have a plebiscite to decide whether we shall send men overseas by conscription, or whether we shall not. We are to decide whether or not the government is to be relieved from a promise made in the past. Why were those promises made? They were made on account of the deep patriotic feeling of the population of Canada, who wanted some protection provided by the Department of National Defence. At the present time what we have is very small, if it exists at all.
We are going on with the plebiscite; we are asking the people if they are willing to relieve the government from what is called the prosecution of the war. What reason does the government give for being relieved of its commitment given during the past year? None at all. Not a single reason has been given by any minister or any hon. member to justify the plebiscite. So much is that so that the Prime Minister said, "I do not know if I need it now, but I may need it later. But, trust me." I trust the Prime Minister; I have supported him for a great many years. But we have reached the time when I am ready to support anybody who will inculcate a system of defence in this country so that our people may be protected.


Vincent Dupuis: Where is he?

Plebiscite Act


Jean-François Pouliot: He is surely not my hon. friend.


Vincent Dupuis: No. I want to keep the actual Prime Minister in office.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask my hon. friend to keep quiet. I do not want any interruptions. Let him remember that he spoke no words during the debate, and I am not supposed to receive instructions from him now- and he must know it. If he has anything to say he must explain it to his electors.


Vincent Dupuis: Where is he?


Jean-François Pouliot: I told my hon. friend it was not he.


Vincent Dupuis: That is not an answer at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: And I was most gracious in saying that. I could have abstained from saying it, and asked that you, Mr. Chairman, call the hon. member to order.


Vincent Dupuis: Where is he?


Jean-François Pouliot: If I continue for five minutes I may convert the hon. member-


Vincent Dupuis: You will do well.


Jean-François Pouliot: -so as to make his views coincide with those of his constituents. I would not have said anything unpleasant-in fact I never do so unless I am interrupted. But when I am interrupted I am like a tiger, because I defend my own people. At the same time, I defend not only my own people, but I defend the people from the constituency of my hon. friend.
I wonder if another question could not be asked in the plebiscite. Could the people not be asked if they approve the gift of a billion dollars to Great Britain? That will be a fine question to put alongside the first one. I believe the question in its present form is not complete; it should be double. The Canadian people should be asked if they are ready to relieve the government from any pledge made in connection with establishing conscription and, in the second place, they should be asked if they are in favour of a gift of a billion dollars to the British exchequer. That would be a fine question.
I can see no reason why the question with respect to conscription should be submitted alone, and the question in connection with the billion dollar gift be left out. The people will have to strive and sweat; they will have to empty their pocket-books to pay taxes to meet that billion dollars. And that was imposed on us. No hon. member was consulted about it; we were faced with the accomplished fact. If we are to have a plebiscite, then let it be complete, and have the two questions.


Vincent Dupuis: Which ones? There is no question of conscription in the plebiscite.


Jean-François Pouliot: And besides that, the bill says nothing about the priority of the defence of Canada. There was an amendment on that point, but it will be recalled that the hon. member who has been interrupting me voted against it. That was his right. There was an amendment, too, with respect to farmers whose work is necessary in a time of war as well as in a time of peace. Theirs is essential work. The hon. member who has been interrupting voted against that amendment- as was his right.
Then, would it not be wise to ask a third question of the Canadian people: Do you not believe that Canadian defence should have priority over any commitments with or in favour of any other nation? Then there could be a fourth question: Are you in favour of exempting farmers' sons?


Vincent Dupuis: The government is actually endeavouring to settle that question.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask the hon. minister in *petto to let me continue.
Those are the four questions that I would ask, that I should like to see asked. If they are asked in the plebiscite I will vote for it. If they are not asked, I will vote against it. And, again, I shall vote against the plebiscite itself when it goes to the people.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, I have risen several times to speak for a few minutes, and I shall detain the committee for only three or four minutes. There is a rule in the house that in committee an hon. member may speak as often as he wishes. He may speak in English and in French, or both, if he chooses.
I have no objection to the minister now making headway with his bill clause by clause, but I should like to point out three or four facts-because facts are facts. I am opposed to the principle of "follow your leader" and "your leader is your policy" on an important measure like this. Every day the bill is before the house the government shift their position with respect to the principle and policy of this bill. They began by telling the country, before parliament met, that owing to the scarcity of man-power the government were going to take some steps at the coming session of parliament, and announced a plebiscite. The reason for it and the cause and effect of the vote have been changed.
The government did announce a policy in the speech from the throne. Now they are
Plebiscite Act

shifting their position. They shifted it in the house, and they shifted it again in the committee the other day and now in this committee, and in all the debates we have had so far. It was said there was great difficulty in getting sufficient man-power and the government were going to lay down a new policy. Then they come along before the house met and propose a plebiscite or a referendum. This has never been done before except that one was held in 1898 in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In that referendum there were 200 local votes off it taken all over Ontario and Manitoba. The Prime Minister made a speech last Wednesday of a different nature. What is the cause and effect of this plebiscite bill, the first we have ever had in Canada, now under the title of the Dominion Plebiscite Act, 1942? The cause is the failure to get man-power or to do anything for a total war. Last Wednesday the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 826 of Hansard:
Hon. members have been talking about conscription, about no conscription and the like. That is not the issue in this plebiscite. 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?
If that is the question, then what is the plebiscite for and why is it at all necessary? Have the government of Canada no courage to act and govern, and do their duty when the enemy is at our very gates? The Japs have submarines that can cross the Pacific without refuelling. As the Prime Minister of Great Britain told the House of Commons the other day, we shall have to expect the enemy who now have captured the command of the sea in the Pacific and will appear on many islands and shores of many countries in the Pacific, and in many other places. If you had a million men, he said, you would not be able to stop them because they move from one island and place to another like a circus from place to place. If the enemy appear in time in the inlets and harbours of British Columbia, will the commanding officer there have to wire Ottawa and say that the enemy is there and will he have to hold a plebiscite before firing a gun, or before sending up an aeroplane?
That is what they would have had to do under the Laurier naval bill in 1909. The same principle applies or may apply with this plebiscite bill to-day. If the enemy in 1909 had approached on the ocean, before the then Canadian navy could have fired off a pin-wheel, a fire-cracker or a sky-rocket, they would have had to have an order in council passed here in Ottawa first, under the naval bill of 1909. That was the principle of the navy bill. Are
[Mr. Church.)
we going to have the same principle in this bill? The people of the country are awake to what is going on. They know more than we do about this plebiscite. They look upon it as being absolutely unnecessary. They consider that with the enemy at our doors, it is no time for it or for playing so at war. The situation is too grave for such by-play.
What will happen when the vote is taken? The ballot in this bill has black all round it and we may have a black-out here with Hitler and Japan arriving first before we can vote yes or no. The enemy may arrive before we can go into the polling booth and mark yes or no. The ballot reads:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
I would strike out all the words after the word "government" and have the ballot read, "Are you in favour of releasing the government?" It is the government that is asking for a release and that is the question to submit, if any. Some pledges were given, but we do not know to whom they were given and conscription was not an issue. I tell you what will happen. Instead of government of the people, by the people and for the people, what have we in this country to-day? We have government by order in council-twenty to twenty-five thousand of them- government by plebiscite and, in addition, government by dollar-a-year men. Is it any wonder that the people are losing confidence in this parliament? Is it any wonder that the electors are asking if there is any parliamentary government or any semblance of it left in this country, or if we are trying to imitate the methods of a mock parliament by this bill? That is what I think we are trying to do, and just playing at war.
When the vote is counted, what will happen? This is going to tie up our war effort for three months; it is going to throttle our effort in the most critical months of the year, April, May and June. We may not know to whom this country belongs by June the way things are going on with the Japs in the Pacific. I tell you what will happen to your vote. The minute the ballots are counted, they will simply be taken to the archives for decent burial of it all in that big new building, where it will be a case of "earth to earth, ashes to ashes and dust to dust" for this plebiscite; in the sure, certain hope, so far as this plebiscite on conscription is concerned, it will never be mentioned by the government again. That will be the end of it.
The Prime Minister made a magnificent speech the other day. I have never heard such a magnificent speech since the old days

Plebiscite Act
when he was a student going to university and when the temperance orators of the world used to speak each week-end in the city of Toronto. We heard a lot of oratory in those days in Massey hall, which was a new building then. The oratory in Massey hall was no better than what we heard here the other day. If it was simply a matter of taking a vote on who was to sign the pledge, it would be a different matter. But it is more than that. The voters know more than we do. They are not going to be humbugged or fooled or consent to be blindfolded by members of parliament or anybody else. A lot of them will not vote. A lot of ballots will be spoiled. No one understands it. Many of them think it is an insult to the electors of this country that this house should sit here day after day discussing academic matters and that kind of thing when the enemy in the Pacific have command of the sea, and when they may get it in the Atlantic as well.
If it were not for Russia, I do not know where we would be. The greatest friends the allies have had are General January and General February. If it had not been for General January and General February in the war between Germany and Russia, we would not know where the British empire would be. General January and General February, this year also are the best friends that British Columbia ever had. They saved the coast province after Pearl Harbour. They have given them a chance in British Columbia to get started and try to arm.
I protest against this bill, and if I can get a seconder I shall move the six months' hoist on the third reading. I believe the rank and file of the members of this house should have an opportunity of placing the blame where it belongs, on the government.
Hon. members opposite have brought in this bill just as a smoke-screen to cover up the mistakes made in the Pacific, Singapore, Hong Kong and other places. We had the Prime Minister rising the other night and wanting to have a dozen moTe Hong Kongs without consulting the military authorities in the sending of troops to adjacent territory, to Seattle, the Aleutian islands and other places where there are no military objectives. This was to be done over the heads of the military authorities by politicians, against the strategy and priorities set out by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. I protest against this.
My constituents can vote the way they want to. They know better than I how to vote. We had two governments in my riding in 1934. We had the whole dominion cabinet down there in 1934 in the by-election and we had the cabinet of the province of Ontario
also. They all appeared there and I was glad to see them. The people of Toronto know how to vote without my telling them. I believe I know how they will vote. They will throw the ballot back in the faces of the government and say, "You have been elected to run the war, not us; go and carry on the work; as long as you are the government of the day, the responsibility is on your shoulders to see to it that we have a magnificent new war effort and a new war management."


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should like to make a suggestion to the committee. The discussion since eight o'clock has been of a general nature which would have been wholly appropriate on the second reading of the bill. We are now in committee considering the bill section by section. If we were to continue on the basis of the discussions of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), we might continue indefinitely. May I suggest that a good deal of the discussion is out of order. I think we would make better progress if we were to confine the discussion to each section of the bill as we come to it.


Thomas Langton Church: A private member shouldn't be a yes man or a nodder either.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. McCann):: The understanding this afternoon, if I gathered it aright, was that on section 1 the discussion was to be general, but that when we came to the other sections the discussion had to be relevant to the section under discussion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are quite correct, Mr. Chairman. That was the agreement, and the hon. gentleman who is leading the house is quite out of date. Moreover, if he had the remarks to make which he has just made, he should have made them before.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I say in reply to the rebuke of the leader of the opposition that my duties required me to be out of the chamber for a great part of the afternoon, and I was not aware of the point which he has just raised. Even so, we have had quite a lengthy discussion and we are anxious to make as much progress as possible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the discussion is not out of order in any event. I admit that on the part of one of the minister's followers there has been what I would term obstruction. I will withdraw that term if it is not parliamentary, but it was so apparent that I think everybody agrees with me. But the discussion per se is not out of order.
Plebiscite Act


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a question of
privilege. As one of the members of the opposition I resent the raising of this point of order by the hon. gentleman who is leading the house after one of our members had spoken for only eight or ten minutes while one of his owm followers had wandered all over the face of the globe for seventy minutes with no protest whatever from the other side of the house. I am beginning to think they are afraid to call the member for Temiseouata to order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: A very courageous remark, that 1


Jean-François Pouliot: I am in your hands, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the issue of this w'ar will be victory for us and that-


James Joseph McCann: Will the hon. gentleman say on what section he is speaking?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am answering what has
been said by the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Waterloo South. The leader of the opposition was referring to me because I was the only Liberal member who had spoken, and he said that I was guilty of obstruction. I know that he has too much parliamentary experience to make that remark seriously. I noticed that he was listening to me and that for the first time in his life he seemed interested in what I was saying. If I was guilty of obstruction, the thing should not have occurred. As for the hon. member for Waterloo South, who is a strong partisan with his own views, I do not care a bit.


Mr. McIVOR:: I have waited most of this afternoon and listened as best I could until I might have an opportunity to ask a question. As I listened I could not help thinking of the words of Carlyle:
There was an owl sat on an oak,
The more he heard the less he spoke,
The less he spoke the more he heard,
I wish there w-ere more like that old bird.
I intend to go out and get every vote I can in favour of the plebiscite because I think that is the right thing to do. I think that is the duty of every man in Canada at the present time, whether he be Irish, Scotch, English, French or anything else.
A question that I have been repeatedly asked, and one that I want to ask of the government is this: Will there be a time and place when the government will consider and act on this suggestion, that a soldier who leaves a job will get better pay than the man who takes it. I know that the soldier gets $1.30 a day, which, with board, would amount to about $69 a month, but the man who steps in and takes his job or perhaps sweeps 
up crumbs in a factory gets fifty cents an hour, which means, with overtime, $100 a month. I say that the man who dons the uniform, no matter where he serves, is the man who should get the raise of pay. I think we are past the time when a man should be asked or encouraged to volunteer for less pay than the man who stays at home, while the fighting man goes out to protect him. I hope, before this session closes, whether before or after the budget, soldiers will get a raise of pay rather than a deduction of former earnings.


Mr. HAZEN:: Mr. Chairman, I was one of the members of the special committee to which this bill was referred. The members of that committee gave careful consideration to each section of the bill, and while they did not all see eye to eye in every particular, they were all agreed on this, that the bill as it came before the committee was too wide in its scope. I am glad to say they all agreed on that; and as a consequence the bill that comes before this committee to-day varies in its most essential provision from the bill as originally drafted and presented to the house. As originally drafted, the bill contained a principle-the Speaker may not agree with me, but I say that it was a principle-that is not to be found in the bill as it is now before this committee. The underlying principle of the bill as first presented to the house was that the government could by proclamation order the taking of a plebiscite at any time it saw fit. That provision was contained in section 3, subsection 1 of the bill as drafted, which read as follows:
The governor in council may by proclamation order the taking of a plebiscite under the provisions of this act.
That was a most dangerous provision. If it had become law it would have made a radical change in the constitution of this country. It would have led the way to government by plebiscite-something which we should endeavour to avoid in Canada. Under our constitution-I may not be speaking accurately but this is as I understand it- the decision of the people on any matter of public policy is given and given only through their elected representatives. Within its legislative jurisdiction the power of parliament is supreme. If the government wants to change its policy or adopt a new policy, it must submit it to parliament for its approval, and if approval is not given, the government must dismiss parliament and appeal to the electors.
Our system of parliamentary government does not provide for any other procedure. It does not provide for procedure by plebiscite.

Plebiscite Act
The two courses open to a government if it wants to change its policy are (1) to have parliament approve the change, or (2) to dissolve parliament and have a new parliament deal with the matter after an election has been held.
To have an important change made in our constitution by the passing of this bill as originally drafted and presented to the house would have been most undesirable and was to be avoided at all costs. It was, I think, with that thought in mind that the members of the special committee limited the provisions of the bill.
The reason why the government introduces this bill is to ask the voters of this country to release it from a promise which it made. That promise was, that there would be no conscription of our man-power for service overseas. The bill as it has been amended by the special committee limits or circumscribes the legislation to that particular question.
I do not think this legislation should be regarded as a precedent, or as changing in any way our constitution. It should be regarded- and I think the special committee looked at it in that light

as extraordinary legislation arising under special conditions brought about in war time. If it is so regarded, I do not believe that, speaking from a constitutional point of view, it can do any harm. But that is the way it should be looked at, and some emphasis should be put upon that phase of the matter by the members of the government who are interested in the bill.
I was impressed with the point made this afternoon by the leader of the opposition, that the regulations impose certain penalties, but that those regulations do not come before parliament but are made by order in council. It seems to me that we are neglecting our duties as members of the House of Commons in not paying more attention to that particular matter.
I would refer also briefly to the suggestion of the hon. member for Lake Centre this afternoon, that any person whose name was omitted from the voters' list, and wanted it added thereto should, in addition to making the affidavits for which the regulations provide, produce his registration certificate. That is a very wise proposal; it would provide an effective safeguard.


Mr. WHITE:: As another member of the
special committee to which the bill was submitted, I have one or two observations to make before we leave this stage. The hon. member who was chairman has already dealt with a matter raised by the leader of the opposition, as to the numbering of the ballots. I associate
myself with what other members of the committee have stated, that when this particular section was before the committee their distinct understanding was that the ballots would be in the same form as those used at a general election.
Although the minister has suggested that we leave certain sections to be dealt with when we come to them, I ask the indulgence of the committee for a few minutes to indicate certain sections which were discussed in committee and to mention what the comments in the committee were. The first was in connection with the form of ballot to be used on the plebiscite, which is set out under section 3. When this section was before the committee I suggested that another form of ballot be used, whereby the question would be set out at the top of the ballot, and there would follow one, two or three lines of instructions to the voter as to how to mark his ballot; then there would be a space for the word "yes" and underneath that a space for the word "no." My reason was that, as the ballot now appears in section 3, with the question set out twice, I fear that the ballot will be confusing to many people, particularly those who live in rural sections, and perhaps those who wish to vote "yes" may feel that they have to strike or cross out the words which repeat the question followed by the word "no."


Thomas Reid: Why in rural constituencies?


George Stanley White: The hon. member for New
Westminster knows that in rural constituencies on election day there are many things which confuse voters. If you look over the number of spoiled ballots, you will notice that it does not take very much to confuse some of them.


Thomas Reid: My point was that it might affect urban as well as rural voters.


George Stanley White: Well, being just one of these rural fellows, I should not like to express an opinion as to the people who come from the cities.


Thomas Reid: I have some regard for the intelligence of the rural people.


George Stanley White: I have too, but I think the hon. member will agree that the ballot should be set out in such a simple manner that there will be no possibility of doubt about how it should be marked.


Thomas Reid: I agree with the hon. member.


George Stanley White: I submit that as the ballot is prepared, with the question repeated, appearing once before the word "yes" and then again before the word "no", it has a tendency to confuse certain voters. I suggested that the question should be printed

Plebiscite Act
at the top of the ballot with two or three lines of simple instructions. But, as the minister pointed out, the majority of the committee were not in favour of that suggestion, and the ballot has come before the committee in its present form.
There was further a question-


The CHAIRMAN:: May I point out to the hon. member that he is now discussing the bill clause by clause.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I take this point of order, that the minister himself opened the debate with a general discussion of all these points, after reviewing the work of the committee, and it was agreed that a general discussion could be held on the first section of the bill and that, after that was over, speakers would be confined to the section.


Thomas Vien: It was to be a general discussion of the principle, if I mistake not, and then the bill would be taken section by section. To continue as we are going now, means that the discussion will be repeated on each section of the bill.


George Stanley White: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that from six to ten hon. members who have served on the special committee have already spoken; they have ranged throughout the bill and made various comments. I think it is only fair that those who served on the special committee should have an opportunity to express in a general way their views and, more or less, what went on in the committee.


Thomas Vien: That is what I understood-"in a general way", but the hon. gentleman is now discussing the bill section by section.


George Stanley White: I am taking just one or two special clauses.


Thomas Vien: That is not "in a general way". Discussing the bill in a general way means discussing the general principles underlying the bill. But if you take in a general way each section, section by section, it. is a repetition of what is going to take place on the motion to adopt each section.


George Stanley White: If, Mr. Chairman, it is your opinion that I must sit down I will do so, but I would point out-


Thomas Vien: If the hon. gentleman would confine himself to a few minutes I wouldl-as a concession-allow him to go on. I should like to point out that I am in the hands of the committee. If we must expedite the work of the committee it is

impossible, first, to discuss on the principle of the bill all of the sections, and then take them up seriatim.


George Stanley White: If you wish to expedite the matter, why was no objection taken when the distinguished member for Temiscouata took up about two hours? I did not hear anyone voice any objection then, but if you say that I must sit down I will sit down.


Thomas Vien: I did not say that.


Norman Alexander McLarty: We have allowed considerable latitude, and perhaps I am more responsible than anyone else for the course the debate has taken. The hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) was a member of the special committee, and inasmuch as I had the privilege of dealing with the work of the committee I would not want to see that right denied to him. If, however, we could understand that there should be some limitation of the breadth of the debate, it would help matters materially. I cannot throw stones at anyone because I probably started it, but at some time we have to come down to the particular section of the bill, and I would suggest that if hon. members could bring themselves to discuss a particular clause when w'e come to it, it would be much more expeditious and satisfactory.


George Stanley White: In view of what the minister says I will finish my remarks and, as the different clauses come up, deal with them. After all, the bill is such an utter farce that it does not make much difference.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: When we are not permitted to discuss the regulations in this committee-


Angus MacInnis: Oh, yes. I think the minister said that the regulations could be discussed on subsection 2 of section 9. That is what I understood.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The leader of the opposition pointed out that this was the only clause under which the regulations could be discussed. I believe it was the original intention when the bill was introduced that the regulation should not be gone over clause by clause in committee. If there are any particular points in the regulations which do not conform to subsection 2 of section 9 they can be discussed under that, but I suggest that it be taken as an undertaking that we shall not go over the regulations clause by clause, the principal reason being the matter of time.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Notwithstanding any
points that have been raised, the minister did make it explicit that there would not be a general discussion of the regulations. He also.

Plebiscite Act
in his enlargement on the general outline of the bill, raised the question of the registration certificate not being used. It is not my desire to detain the committee at any length, but I wish to recite an experience that occurred over the week-end and also to protest most vehemently against the deletion of the use of the registration certificate.


Thomas Vien: Deletion of what?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The use of the registration certificate. The minister referred to it in his general remarks. My understanding was and still is that no employer of labour can employ anyone without first requiring him to produce the certificate. I understand also that not long ago there was licensing in connection with every transaction of business by wholesalers and retailers. That requirement in regard to licensing appears to have gone with the wind. Men are now shipping goods without a licence number and are doing just about what they like, although we were told at first that shipments must be held up if the licence number did not appear on the invoice. Unless there has been a change in the hiring of men throughout Canada, whereby they are required first to produce their registration certificates-*


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. gentleman tell me under what item he is speaking?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I am speaking in connection with the general discussion. The minister also referred to the registration certificate under the short title of the bill. I am not going to detain the committee very long, but on Saturday last two different firms who are desperately in need of men to carry on their business informed me that men had come into their place of business and were unable to produce their registration certificates. The minister explained why it was not required; in connection with men voting, to produce the registration certificate. I claim that unless the registration certificate has lost its value and if a man cannot get employment without producing his certificate, such persons wandering around the country should not vote on a question such as this. I do urge that consideration be given this point, notwithstanding that the committee may have compromised on the matter. If the cost of the registration of people throughout- Canada is worth anything, if it is sufficiently valuable to make it the law of this country, that before a man can be employed he must produce his registration certificate, then surely the certificate ought to be used when it comes to restricting people in casting their ballot. Any 44561-61
further remarks I have to make I shall confine to the different sections of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Norman Alexander McLarty: There are some amendments which I would ask the Minister of National Revenue to move. In subsection (a) in line 9 the last three words "at a plebiscite" should be deleted. Perhaps the leader of the opposition is looking at the new bill, but I am dealing with the bill as the committee had it before them.


Thomas Vien: The other is a reprint.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, but I am dealing
with the bill as it went to the committee, and I am seeing that the appropriate amendments are moved so that it will correspond with the reprint.


Richard Burpee Hanson: "At a
plebiscite" came out.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes. In subclause (c) the words "during a plebiscite" should read "during the plebiscite".


Thomas Vien: I do not believe it is necessary to amend the bill in each particular in which the committee has amended it. We have the bill as reported from the committee and as reprinted.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I thought possibly a
motion had to be made.


Thomas Vien: I am not aware of that.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If it is understood that the amendments in the bill as it came from the committee do not need to be moved, I will not press the motion.


Thomas Vien: The bill has been reprinted, and we are reading from the reprint as amended by the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The reprint is for the convenience of the committee. I think the amendments have to be moved. I do not agree with the Chairman.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I remember at the time we were considering the Unemployment Insurance Act the question was raised, and at that time it seemed to be demanded that each particular amendment be moved.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Was it not the report of the committee-the bill as reprinted-which has been turned over to the committee of the whole house?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Yes, but the special committee report has not been adopted ; therefore the recommendations of that committee have not been approved by this com-

Plebiscite Act

mittee. Consequently the bill as submitted to the special committee has only been amended by that committee, and we have to amend the original bill here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There has been no motion for concurrence.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The amendments are as follows:
In line 15, following the word "plebiscite" the words "issued under section 3 of this act" are deleted. Then a new clause is inserted dealing with the electoral district definition to include the Yellowknife administration district as it appears in the bill as printed. As a result subparagraphs (d), (e), (f) and (g) are changed to (e), (f), (g) and (h) by the insertion of clause (d) as it now appears in the bill.
Under clause (e) the words "ordering a plebiscite to be taken, issued under section 3 of this act" are changed to read "issued under this act, ordering the plebiscite to be taken".
In clause (g) which is now clause (h) the word "a" is changed to "the" before the word "plebiscite" in line one of page 2.


Mr. GIBSON moved:: That section 2 be amended in subsection (a), line 9, by striking out the words "at a plebiscite".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Colin William George Gibson: That section 2 be amended in subsection (c), line 14, by striking out the word "A" and substituting in lieu thereof the word "the".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Colin William George Gibson: That section 2 be further amended in subsection (c), lines 15 .and 16, by deleting the words "issued under section 3 of this act".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Colin William George Gibson: That section 2 be further amended by adding after subsection (c) another subsection to be subsection (d) of section 2 reading "electoral district" means any territorial area entitled to elect a member or members to serve in the House of Commons of Canada, and, notwithstanding anything contained in The Representation Act, 1933, for the purpose of this act, shall include the Yellowknife administration district under the name Yellowknife as established on 1st October, 1939, under the provisions of the local administration district ordinance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Colin William George Gibson: That section 2 be further amended by making the present subsection (d) become subsection (e).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a change there, isn't there?


Thomas Vien: It is making subsection (d) become (e).


Norman Alexander McLarty: In addition to changing the lettering of the subsection there is an amendment deleting the words "a proclamation of the governor in council issued under section 3 of this act." Those words must be deleted.


Thomas Vien: The lettering of the paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) becomes (e), (f), (g) and (h), and then that the new subsection (e) is further amended in lines 19, 20, and 21, by deleting the words "a proclamation of the governor in council issued under section 3 of".


Colin William George Gibson: *I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Colin William George Gibson: That section 2 subsection (f) be further amended by deleting in lines 23 and 24 the words "ordering a plebiscite to be taken issued under section 3 of this act" and substituting in lieu thereof the words "issued under this act. ordering the plebiscite to be taken".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Colin William George Gibson: That section 2 subsection (h) be amended on the first line of page 2 by striking out the -word "a" and substituting in lieu thereof the word "the".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Angus MacInnis: There is a typographical error in subsection (h), line 8.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, the word "the" is
inserted incorrectly and should be deleted.
Section 2 as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Limitation.


Colin William George Gibson: That section 3 subsection 1 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Limitation.
3. (1) This act shall be limited to the taking of a plebiscite on a question to be set out in the ballot papers in the following words and form:
Every person qualified to vote at the plebiscite shall do so by making a cross within one of the spaces herein provided after the word 'yes' or after the -word 'no' according to the manner in which such person desires to vote.
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commit- YES ments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commit- NO ments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?

Plebiscite Act
Proclamation ordering taking of plebiscite.
(2)	The governor in council may by proclamation order the taking of a plebiscite for the purpose of submitting to the ordinary voters and to the Canadian service voters the question set out in subsection one of this section. Contents of proclamation.
(3)	The proclamation shall state fully the question to be submitted at the plebiscite in the same words and form as it will appear on the ballot paper pursuant to the provisions of subsection one of this section.
Idem.
(4)	The proclamation shall also state the date fixed as polling day for such plebiscite, which shall be a Monday and the same in all electoral districts. Such proclamation shall further state the respective days and dates upon which Canadian service voters, as defined in this act, stationed within or without Canada, may cast their votes at such plebiscite. Publication.
(5)	The proclamation shall be published forthwith in a special issue and in at least two ordinary issues of the Canada Gazette.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I am going to take exception to the form of the ballot. I agree with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough that this ballot is confusing. I have voted on a number of plebiscites-we call them by-laws-in municipal elections. The question asked on such occasions is whether one is in favour of or against a certain proposal. I have never seen a question appearing twice on the ballot.
On this ballot there are two questions, although it is the same question stated twice. In my opinion this is bound to cause confusion. People do not vote on questions like this every day; they are not accustomed to dealing with the written word, as are members of parliament. They have not had the training in these matters that lawyers have had. They will come in and read the first part of the ballot, and become confused. The whole thing is stacked against the voter, at the very beginning. For instance, a voter will read the question opposite which the word "yes" appears. Then, he may scratch out the "yes" and put down a big "no," with the result that a spoiled ballot has been cast.
I spoke to the representative of this group on the special committee, and pointed out to him my objection, while the committee was sitting. In my opinion the question should appear only once, and the words "yes" and "no" should be enclosed in brackets or in divisions at the end. Then the voter could make a cross either for or against in the "yes" or "no" division. In that way the ballot would not have to be repeated.


Thomas Reid: Was this possibility discussed: in the special committee? I agree with what other hon. members have said, namely that this
44561-flli
ballot will confuse the voter. I believe the whole thing could be simplified by having the question appear only once, and then by providing places for "yes" or "no" votes.
Mr. MoLARTY: This matter was discussed1 in committee. I have no violent feeling as to the form in which the question should appear. When the matter was first considered I was somewhat of the opinion that one question would be appropriate, and that spaces for "yes" and "no" could be provided. I believe, however, that the action of the committee was governed entirely by the experience of the chief electoral officer, who has suggested this form of ballot. My recollection is that it has been used extensively in practically all the provinces, in connection with the Canada Temperance Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not very often.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Members of the special committee were surprised to leam the number of times it had been used.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: How long ago was that?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Between 1920 and 1925, if I remember correctly the dates the chief electoral officer gave us.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That is sixteen years ago; we have a new generation now.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would suppose that a change of ballot is not something which1 would change with the generation. However, according to the report given to the special committee, which was after some argument adopted by it, it was decided that this was the form which was most appropriate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There
must be a large number of members of the legal profession in Ontario who are familii.,. with the provisions of the municipal act of that province whereby at annual elections what are known as money by-laws are submitted to the voters. They have them right here in Ottawa. I have never voted on one, but I know that the people are simply asked: Are you in favour of a bond issue for so-and-so?-and they are usually asked to answer "yes" or "no."


Thomas Reid: They write "yes" or "no" on the ballot.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
seems to be a most simple method. In this instance the question would be asked: Are you in favour of releasing the government?- and the answer would be "yes" or "no." That procedure is familiar to the voters of Ontario,
Plebiscite Act

although we do not have that type of legislation in New Brunswick. In that province a municipality .wishing to make a capital expenditure takes the necessary steps, and the matter is referred to the legislature. That would apply to a town council or a county council, as the case may be. Such by-law would be reviewed by the Department of Municipal Affairs, and the government of the day accepts some responsibility in the matter.
I do not say the government accepts full responsibility, but it follows some policy, and either accepts or rejects. However, our by-laws are not submitted to the people-I believe it would be much better if they were, because such submission is an added control over councils.
In Ontario, however, the submission of by-laws to the people is universal practice. I am told that in British Columbia it is a procedure stipulated by law. I believe most provinces in Canada must have something analogous, where the voter writes his "yes" or "no". That is the simplest possible form of ballot. I am convinced that this one would be confusing.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I believe the voter simply makes a cross.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; he does not write at all.


James Joseph McCann: I cannot see that there is any particular advantage or disadvantage in having the question repeated on the ballot paper. I have voted several times in reference to municipal by-laws in Ontario, and if I remember correctly, it is the practice to have the question appear only once. But I believe the minister will recall that in an ordinary election it is customary to put the names of those for whom the ballot is to be cast in alphabetical order. There is some advantage, especially when there are three names, in being either at the top or the bottom. There are many people who are inclined to vote for names at the top or the bottom. If the committee wishes to carry out that idea, then this would be reversed; it would be "no" and "yes", not the other way round1.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Would the hon, member make it affirmative or negative?


James Joseph McCann: I do not know whether the "yes" being first reflects the wish of the government or not. If it does, then perhaps there is an advantage in having it at the top. But if you are going to follow the practice usually followed in electoral contests and have it in alphabetical' order, then the "no" should be opposite the first question and the "yes" opposite the second.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I agree with the hon. members who take exception to this form of ballot. I think it will be found that many people will go into the polling booth and instead of putting a cross or writing anything down, they will simply strike out that word which they do not want. If they want to vote "no", they will strike out the word "yes", and spoil the ballot. As the leader of the opposition has said, when we submit ballots to the municipal ratepayers in Ontario we submit the one question and then there is a "yes" and a "no" and they vote accordingly.
I think the ballot provided for in the bill is most confusing and is going to cause a lot of difficulty. There is no reason at all why we should not do what has been suggested. In reference to the various plebiscites taken in Ontario, hon. members from this province will recall that the one in 1919 contained four questions. There were four different questions, but each question dealt with a different phase of the liquor act.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: What did you get? You got Mitch.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No; we never got Mitch; Mitch just happened. There were other votes taken later on. The one taken in 1921 was submitted in such a way that it was simply a question of "yes" or "no". I think we could change this ballot from what it is.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Some time ago in Ontario the voters in most of the municipalities were asked to vote, "Are you in favour of daylight saving-yes or no?" There was no possibility of the voter getting mixed up. If you have this thing the way it is now, I know in my riding you will have half the ballots spoiled.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I am altogether too young to remember the vote on the liquor question in Ontario, but I have had considerable experience with people signing forms and answering questions such as on applications to the civil service commission. My opinion is that this ballot is most confusing in many ways. I think the question should be asked just once and then have the word "yes" with a, square after it in which the voter could put his mark, and then the word "no" with a square after it. There would be a place in which the voter could signify his intention. The way it is now the people will think they have to strike out that portion which they do not approve. In my humble opinion the ballot in its present form is very confusing. The voter will be led to believe that he is required to do more than is necessary, and there will be an obscurity as to his wish as expressed in the ballot. I would suggest that the question be a great deal simpler than it is now.

Plebiscite Act


Douglas Gooderham Ross: When I said that half the ballots would be spoiled in my riding if the ballot were left as it is now, I meant that as the people there had such definite views, if they wanted to vote "yes" they would mark their ballot that way and then strike out the "no".


Mr. TURGEON:: I have no deep opinion as to the particular form the ballot should take, but when I was in the special committee I was convinced by what the chief electoral officer told us was the experience of his branch. The members of the special committee made a change which has not been brought to the attention of this committee of the whole, and the following words were placed at the top of the ballot:
Every person qualified to vote at the plebiscite shall do so by making a cross within one of the spaces herein provided after the word "yes" or after the word "no" according to the manner in which such person desires to vote.


Thomas Reid: How many do you think will read that?


James Gray Turgeon: The special committee thought they would read it. I am not arguing in favour of this ballot, but as one of the members of that committee I want to point out what was in the minds of the members of that committee when they were giving consideration to this question. There is no doubt that the members of the special committee felt that persons coming to vote would read that, and, my opinion is that they would. When the average person goes into the quiet of the polling booth he will look at the ballot to see what is on it. When he reads what is at the top, the nature of the action he is expected to take will be clarified and he will be able to mark his ballot accordingly. I would not have any fear that there will be many rejected ballots because of the way in which this question is put. I am not saying that because I object to changing the question -that does not matter very much. I would have no fear that the average voter will be able to vote intelligently with this ballot.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would it not be a sound principle to apply to this problem to have the form as simple as possible? I suggest that the question be placed on the form once and once only, and direction given to mark opposite the word "yes" with a cross in a square, or opposite the word "no", as the case may be.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think the hon. members of this committee wish to get a ballot form that will be as fair and simple as. possible. I suggest that possibly we may let this form stand, and I shall endeavour to have sample
ballots prepared overnight and then hon. members will have an ocular demonstration as to whether or not it is simple.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: When the resolution was introduced I think it was mentioned that there would not be as many polling booths as would be provided in an ordinary election. Therefore, there will be a greater number of people voting at each booth. To a large extent, that will eliminate some of the questions of the cost of taking this plebiscite, but if every voter has to read a chapter of a book before he votes, we can see how it will slow up the voting.


Mr. GREEN:: It does seem to me that the words at the top of the ballot could be simplified a great deal. Would it not be more satisfactory to use these words:
Make a cross within the space after the word "yes" or after the word "no" according to the manner in which you desire to vote.
'Would that not be simpler than having all this business about "Every person qualified
to vote", et cetera?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think I shall be able to produce some sample ballots to-morrow, if that is the wish of the committee. I do not think this ,is a matter in which there is any great difference. It is simply a case of trying to get the ballot in the best form.


Thomas Vien: Mr. McLarty moves that section 3 stand.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Just subsection 1.


George Black: I should like to say a word before that motion is put. I think the minister is correct when he says that the committee was largely influenced in recommending this form of ballot by the opinion of the chief electoral officer who said that such form had been satisfactory in the past. After listening to the discussion that has taken place to-night, I really think the form of ballot would be simplified by printing the question on it only once..
If hon. members will look at the ballot paper as it appears in the bill, I think they will agree that it would be much simpler to raise the word "yes"-or "no" if you like-further up in the space, and then print "no" below it. drawing a line between "yes" and "no" and leaving a space after each word where the voter could mark his cross. That would be very much simpler, and then you would not need the printed direction above at all.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think we are
wasting a lot of time. In the last federal election we solved simple problems such as
Plebiscite Act

this very easily so far as my riding is concerned. It was left to the intelligence of the voter.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That did not solve it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They put the cross in the right place. Does this committee realize that Japan is still at our doors and that we are wasting time talking a lot of nonsense?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: And holding a
plebiscite.


Ernest George Hansell: I know I am of small stature, Mr. Chairman, but some time I may fill the shoes of a Minister of Agriculture, and then perhaps I can be seen and heard. I agree with all that has been said with respect to the confusion that may arise over this form of ballot. The hon. member for Caribou has called attention to the wording of the ballot paper and suggested that when people vote they will read what is at the top of the ballot. I am more concerned as to what the people will read about in respect to what they are voting for. I am more confused about that than I am about the form of the ballot. The question to be asked of the voters is this:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
I have tried to think my way through that, and I can think of only two methods of raising men: One is by conscription and the other is by voluntary enlistment. There may be some regulations governing methods. The government may be confused over whether they should send a postcard when a man is to be called up for military service or whether they should send an officer along to tell him lie is required. I would ask the minister what methods of raising men for military service are used now, and what commitments have been made that restrict the government to any particular methods of raising men. I do not believe that the government are restricted in their methods of raising men. Where they are restricted is as to where to send the men after they are raised. But that does not appear on the ballot, and I think people are going to be confused as to what they are voting for when they read the question.
While on the question of the ballot, I appreciate the minister's suggestion that we let the ballot stand until he can reconsider its form. But if he is going to reconsider the ballot at all, there are a few other matters he should consider, and first is the thing I have already mentioned, the question to be asked. I should like at the proper time, Mr. Chairman, to submit an amendment. I do not know whether now is the proper time or not,
fMr. Cruickshank.J
but I will submit it for consideration, and if this is the time to vote on it, the minister may accept it and embody it in the ballot for our consideration when he comes back. I move that the following words be added to the question appearing on the ballot paper: "in any theatre of war." The question then will read:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service in any theatre of war.
Then the people will know what they are voting upon. I think it is only fair to say that the whole country believes that they are going to vote on whether or not there shall be conscription of men for service. But that is not what the ballot states.
There is another thing about this ballot. I have received a good many letters recently in connection with the plebiscite, and the general contention of the people who have inquired of me is that they are not going to vote for the conscription of men for overseas service if they are not privileged to vote on the conscription of finance. I think that is a reasonable attitude to take because, after all, the man who is conscripted to face shot and shell and who gives his life for his country is giving all he has. Surely there should be some mobilization and conscription of other things too. The government desires to be released from its commitments. I would suggest that another question be added to the ballot paper, and I would suggest that it read this way. I move this as an amendment:
That a second question be placed upon the ballot paper as follows:
Are you in favour of the conscription of ithe financial institutions of Canada so that the government can fulfil its commitment to issue currency and credit in terms of public need?
I pass these amendments along to you, Mr. Chairman, and I send copies of each of them to the minister. I trust that when the ballot comes back we shall find it amended exactly as I have suggested, and that the questions will be printed accordingly. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I shall gladly support the ballot if it is so amended.


Thomas Vien: We can take only one amendment at a time. It is moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) that the following words be added to the question appearing on the ballot: "in any theatre of war."


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would you be kind enough to read it, Mr. Chairman?

Plebiscite Act


Thomas Vien: The question as proposed to be amended would then read:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service in any theatre of war?
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?


Mr. PERLEY:: No matter what the form
of the ballot may be, I can assure the committee that there will be as few spoiled ballots in the constituency of Qu'Appelle as anywhere else in the country. My opinion is that there should be nothing on the ballot but the question itself. There is no need to print the directions on how to vote because the directions will be posted in the polling booth itself. You should have just the question on the ballot paper, without any directions.
I do not believe there are any commitments of the government restricting the method of raising men. That part of the question is outside the issue and quite unnecessary. The restriction is not with respect to the method of raising men; it is as to where you send the men. So I think that should be deleted, to make it more comprehensible, and there should be added to it something as to where you send the men for military service. The question could be made more understandable by deleting that part of the fourth line, also by striking out any instructions as to how to vote; have just the one question, with "yes" or "no", and I think it would be very readily understood.


James Arthur Ross: I feel sure that this ballot is going to be very confusing to a lot of people in my part of the country. The manner of voting in municipal elections as regards the ballots suggests a much simpler form, where you have one question appear, and you can vote "yes" or "no". I am receiving a great many letters from people in my own home riding, irrespective of political affiliation, wanting to know what it means if they vote "yes" and what it means if they vote "no". I have not yet been able to learn from the government what it means. I have taken the trouble to read previous speeches in this chamber by the Prime Minister and members of the government, and after doing so I am unable to see that a vote on this ballot will get us anywhere. I think the hon. member for Macleod made it very plain in his discussion on the resolution as to this plebiscite that this ballot would not release the government from its pledges given in this house some years ago. He presented a very strong argument, and
his suggested amendment does something to clarify to the public the meaning of the ballot. "In any theatre of war" makes it at least slightly more explicit. I think it could be improved even more. I suggest in all seriousness that only one question appear on the ballot paper, and I think that the words "in any theatre of war" should be added. The question would not then be so confusing to the general public.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle has, I think, put his finger right on the fallacy of this question. In the mobilization act, in the admissions made by the Prime Minister in this house within a few days, the principle of compulsion is admitted. This government has power to raise men by any method, and it is raising them by all the methods which are now available-the voluntary system and the compulsory system. The only distinction is as to the disposition of the men raised by the government. In the one case, the men raised by compulsion may not be sent beyond the territorial limits of Canada, while men raised by voluntary methods may. So the question which is proposed to be put in this ballot is an untruthful one; it does not bear the essence of truth. There is not any restriction to-day on the method of raising men; it is the matter of the disposal of the men once they are raised; there is the fallacy of the whole thing. I put it to the Prime Minister, is there any restriction of the method of raising men in this country to-day? None whatever. The government can do anything it likes under the War Measures Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. That is not the point.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); I know what the Prime Minister has to say. I have the floor, for just a few moments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend asked me a question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I
didn't-or I did with a rider attached. I make this assertion, that there is no restriction in law or in fact on the method by which this government may raise men for military service, and I defy a successful answer to the contrary to that question. The only trouble with the situation in Canada to-day is that the government has voluntarily tied itself by a commitment which it made to the public in the last election as to the disposition of the men raised by compulsion. We have the

Plebiscite Act
limitation in section 3 of the mobilization act, and this is self-imposed by the government. But by the same token, the government has in its possession to-day an opinion from its own law officers of the crown that, notwithstanding the limitation contained in the third section of t'he mobilization act, it may disregard that and send men out of Canada who are raised on a compulsory principle. So the whole thing is a hollow sham and a mockery; that is what it is. Analyse it, now.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't get mad.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not mad at all. I am trying to emphasize an argument. You don't get me mad as easily as that. That is a fact. This question as framed by the Prime Minister is clever. I thought so the minute I heard it. It is intended to fool the people.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes.
You may not like it. As a matter of fact there is no restriction on the method to-day in law or in fact as to how this country may raise men. The whole point of the discussion, all the controversy, rages round the disposition of these men. There is, of course, also a difference in point of view, but that is not the question. There is no commitment in respect of which the government ought to be released in regard to the method of raising men. We have adopted every known method there is to raise men. Why, we have even resorted in this country to the method of coercion in the training centres to get volunteers for service overseas. I do not say that that practice is universal, but the Department of National Defence put it up to its training centres to get so many men from the draftees to volunteer for service overseas, and it depends very largely on the commanding officers, the men immediately in charge of recruiting, as to the methods to be adopted. Some take one method and some take another.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Some of them you would not be very proud of.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I am afraid that is true. But it is put up to them to get the men, and it depends on the temperament of the man who is doing the job as to what method he pursues. But the government- "Oh, we never authorized anything like that!" Of course the department would say that "we never told them to take that course". Last year I saw a questionnaire which was put to trainees, and they were chased "right up into the clearing"; if they were not prepared to volunteer for overseas service, why? Men are

supposed to sign on the dotted line after giving their reasons, and they are brought before officers and cross-examined then: "Why don't you sign up for overseas?" In some cases they are browbeaten and coerced into doing it. That is contrary to the principle of the voluntary system. That, of course, is not true universally.


An hon. MEMBER:: Almost.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It all
depends on the community and the training centre where it happens. I would not say it is universal, but it is true in certain instances.
I ask hon. members to get right down to business and analyse the language of this question. In the light of the law and of the known facts, there is not any commitment; there is not any restriction of the method of raising men. This is just another proverbial red herring drawn across the track to fool the Canadian people-which the Prime Minister has done so many times and so successfully.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: On the point of order, the words of the leader of the opposition are clearly out of order.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: Which
words?


Thomas Vien: Citation 297 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms states that it is out of order to charge another with falsehood or deceit. It is also out of order to suggest that any hon. member has deliberately raised a false issue. The words of the leader of the opposition are therefore clearly out of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not charge the Prime Minister with falsehood.


Thomas Vien: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I did not.


Thomas Vien: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Neither did I charge him with deceit. I did charge him with trying to fool the people, and I have heard that done a thousand times.


Thomas Vien: Words are given as examples in citations 297 and 298 under standing order 41, but they are only examples. What the hon. gentleman has said, to the effect that the Prime Minister had fooled the people, is equivalent to many of the expressions which are clearly given in the rule as being out of order, and I so rule.

Plebiscite Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: I appeal with great respect from your ruling, sir.


Jean-François Pouliot: The leader of the opposition said it with flowers, Mr. Chairman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is customary in matters of the kind to ask Hansard to give the exact words.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask a question? Has the Chairman ruled that the words "fooling the people" or "seeking to fool the people"-I think those were my words- charged the Prime Minister with deceit? If that is his construction, I certainly never intended to .do that.


Thomas Vien: The words I have to report are: "The leader of the opposition having stated that the question contained in the ballot form in section 3 of the bill was another attempt of the Prime Minister deliberately to fool the people, as he has done so many times in the past. ..." Those are the words as I heard them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that is out of order, I am quite willing to withdraw. I have no intention of being out of order.


Thomas Vien: Those words are withdrawn, are they?


Richard Burpee Hanson: You heard what I said-if they are out of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say first of all to the leader of the opposition that unless my memory fails me entirely, he was the one, the first one in the house, to express his approval of my having given a straightforward question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Having
asked the question. I never approved it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am coming back to what was said in the course of the debate on the address. Great emphasis was laid on the importance of having the question that was to be asked before the house when we were discussing the matter, and in speaking on the address I used the following language, as reported in Hansard at page 51:
I shall not go into detail regarding the procedure to be followed in holding the proposed plebiscite. The question which the government proposes to submit to the people is the simple and straightforward 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 was informing the house at the earliest possible moment of what the question would be. At a later stage in the debate, and in the debate on this present bill, some question was raised as to the exact wording of the
question, and I had occasion then to refer the house or the committee to what I had said on the address. This question has been before the house since the house opened, and until to-night the language of it has not been questioned, with respect to any ulterior motive, at least, that may have been in the mind, or as alleged to-night to have been in the mind, of the ministry in the drafting of it. I submit that there is nothing ulterior about the question at all. It is a straightforward question, and inasmuch as the discussion has taken place up to the present in reference to the question in the form in which it is, I hope that hon. members will not suggest the necessity of making any amendments to it.
May I say further that the reason why the question is before us as a part of the bill is largely due to the fact that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked that it should be inserted in the bill in the exact words in which it is. If he thought that the question was wrong, or that there was anything ulterior about it, or that there was any duplicity in the wording of it, and so forth, he should not have been the first to suggest that that identical question should be made a part of the bill. It was on my hon. friend's suggestion, that the question as he understood it should be a part of the bill, that I asked that instructions be given to the special committee to see that the question should be so inserted in the bill. I think that ought to be a sufficient reason why at this stage of the debate at any rate the question should not be altered one way or the other.
As to the question, the leader of the opposition now says that the government has the power under the War Measures Act-that it has the power in law and in fact to send men overseas, and that therefore there is no necessity for the question. I have said from the beginning that parliament is all-powerful. As a matter of fact parliament can at the present time pass any enactment it pleases regardless of any commitment that has been made in the past, or any pledge that has been given; but whether parliament would be prepared to do that or not depends a good deal upon what value a man attaches to his word, or what value parliament attaches to its action, or what value a government attaches to its pledge. As to the power, no one has ever denied that parliament has power to do whatever it pleases. With regard to the actual power it possesses to-day to conscript men to send overseas, we have that power under the War Measures Act.
But what was the nature of the pledge that was given, the pledge given on every platform, not by myself alone? I quoted and placed on Hansard od Wednesday last the

Plebiscite Act

strong and emphatic language used by the leader of the Conservative party pledging all his party in exactly the same way as I was pledging mine. It was not as I say in reference to not possessing the power that any pledge was given, but having the power, that the power would not be exercised in one particular; that commitment was made. The pledge admitted the power, if you wish, but the commitment was that that power would not be exercised in one form or particular, namely, raising men for military service overseas by conscription. The commitment was a commitment restricting the methods of raising men for military service. The restriction was as to raising men by conscription for military service overseas.
Now the hon. leader of the opposition seeks to-night to make out that the question as it is worded here is related to the law or to the fact. It is not related to the law or to the fact at all; it is related to a commitment that was made with respect to whatever law there might be or whatever the fact might be. A commitment that no matter whatever power the government had, it would not exercise that power with respect to men to be sent overseas if the method to be employed was to be the method of conscription. In other words, that as far as service overseas was concerned that was to be by voluntary enlistment, not by enlistment under coercion or conscription. That was a commitment. That is the commitment. It is that commitment that the government is asking to be freed from. That commitment does not apply to the use of conscription generally; we have conscription with respect to the raising of men for service in Canada; this parliament itself has enacted a measure which contains the power of the use of compulsion for military service. No exception was taken by the government to that; in fact the government brought forward the measure. The commitment that was made at the time of the general election was not against applying compulsory service for the defence of Canada within Canada; it was only in relation to service overseas. That is why I said the other night that if to-morrow it became necessary to exercise compulsion in the matter of protecting our shores to the extent of our armed forces going out in the Pacific beyond Queen Charlotte island, or to Alaska, or to Labrador or Newfoundland, I would not hesitate one moment in using the War Measures Act to sde that conscription was enforced for that purpose were such a step necessary. That would not be violating the commitment made. The commitment was not made with respect to the protection of our own shores; it was made with respect to sending men

overseas; everyone so understood it, and it was to that extent that the law and the fact was limited and that the government at the present time is limited.
If we attached no importance whatsoever to a solemn pledge given in relation to this particular war, as respects one aspect and one phase of our war effort, then I might join as my hon. friend is prepared to do now, but was not prepared to do at the time he asked the people to return him to parliament; we might say, as he does, discount all that and pay no further attention to it. But we are not prepared so to do; we are going to stand by the pledge we have made until the people themselves release us from it. But we are going to tell the people that we believe it is in their own interest that the government should be released from that pledge or commitment. That is the simple question we are putting before them, the one and only question:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of-
Not the law, not the fact, but-
-any past commitments-
[DOT]-and "any past commitments" and "any" covers everything that can be construed as a commitment.
-restricting the methods of raising men for military service.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Overseas; that is the point.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put the word "overseas" in.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -"arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service." "Any" covers everything, overseas, and all else. What more could any one wish for? That is the whole purpose. So that there can be no doubt whatsoever with respect to any commitment that has been made, whether it relates to any theatre of war or any part of the world, or any aspect of the war service, it covers everything. That is as clear as it possibly can be, and I am saying it as emphatically as I can.
I agree with those who have spoken to-night as to the form of the ballot and who have said that the simpler it can be made the better. I so expressed myself to the minister when I saw what the committee had recommended, but when I heard that the special committee, composed of members of all parties in the house, were unanimously of the view, after having heard the chief electoral officer, that this form of ballot which is now on the order paper was preferable, I said nothing further about it. And for the same reason I thought I would refrain from

Plebiscite Act
saying anything on the matter in the debate to-night. However I think what has been suggested by the hon. member for Yukon, by the hon. member for Carleton, by the leader of the opposition and by several other speakers and what I know the minister himself would prefer would be that there should be but the one simple question, and that at the end of the question there should be a square divided into four with "yes" and "no" above and below each item in the squares nearest the question and two blanks opposite in one or other of which an X could be placed. It would be a very simple ballot, and I would be surprised if the house generally would not agree upon it.
May I say-it may sound a little absurd but I have sometimes thought that if one wanted to get from any group-I am not applying this to this honourable house, but as something to be secured from any group- just the opposite of what might appear to be what is desired, the thing to do would be to suggest the opposite form of question in the first instance, because exception would be bound to be taken to it at the outset. I am as sure as that I am speaking to-night that if the committee had brought in a single question in the form now being proposed we would have had an equal number of speakers asking why we did not put the question into two columns so that there could be no mistake if a person marked his ballot after the "yes" he meant "yes" in regard to that particular question.
I am of the point of view of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) who said a moment ago that these are terrible times, and I do not think it discloses the truest sense of proportion that we should be spending an entire evening, as we have tonight, listening to one or two hon. members speaking at very great length with the remainder of the time pretty well taken up entirely with a discussion on the wording on a single ballot in respect to which consideration had already been given by a special committee of the house. There are grave issues at stake at the present time, and we may very soon have to consider some of them much more profoundly than we have thus far had occasion to do. I would suggest to hon. members that they try to make all the progress that can be made with the legislation before us, avoiding unnecessarily long speeches and also unnecessary and sometimes trivial objections to what may be before the house.


George Black: With the chairman's permission and the permission of the Prime Minister, in speaking of the election in 1940 he said that the leader of the Conservative party pledged the Conservative party 44561-62J
against conscription. I would remind the Prime Minister and the committee that the Conservative party was not in that election, that the Conservative party had been jettisoned, torpedoed, and that the then leader was then leading the National Government party. I am probably the only candidate of that time who ran as a Liberal-Conservative and was elected. I could not stomach the National government party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was very careful to say that the Conservative party had another name for the purpose of the election, that they did travel under the name of the National Government party. I am prepared not only to admit that but to congratulate my hon. friend on being the only Simon-pure in the party.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I take
strong exception to that. I am a Simon-pure and always have been, notwithstanding that I was not consulted by the gentleman.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I agree with the Prime Minister that we are spending far too much time on this plebiscite. There are other and graver issues, we should be dealing with them instead of wrangling over the wording of the plebiscite. But I agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Macleod. The Prime Minister himself is a master of English, and if he reads the question carefully he will find that the words "restricting the methods of raising men for military service" modify the word "commitments," and that the commitments were made in relation to sending men overseas. The adding of the four words "in any theatre of war" would clear the matter up, and make the position abundantly clear. I am asking the Prime Minister and the government to consider the matter over night, because it is now eleven o'clock.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 11.03 p.m.
Tuesday, March 3, 1942