It has to do with
the principle of the bill because certain important matters are left to the discretion of the government-a procedure to which we are opposed. Further, there is a similar objection to section 19. This is important and should not be passed over at this stage. Section 19 reads:
(1) The governor in council may, from time to time, make orders and regulations relating to any or all of the following matters:
(a) the extension and application of the provisions of this act, with necessary modifications, to any case in which there is a state of armed conflict, civil or otherwise, either within a foreign country or between foreign countries.
(b) the issue of permits, the prescribing of conditions upon which permits may be issued, and the designation of the authority or authorities who may issue permits.
And so on. It strikes me that this government should be the last to advocate government by order in council. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said a few weeks ago, as reported at page 249 of Hansard:
Over and over again we have laid down the principle that so far as participation in war is concerned, it will be for the parliament of Canada to decide. Having taken that attitude with respect to participation, I think we might well take the same attitude with respect to neutrality.
I suggest to the government that this bill be brought into conformity with the principles laid down by the Prime Minister. The powers given to the government by section
19 to extend the provisions of the act are too wide, and certainly undefined. This is a delegation not to regulate but to legislate. Power should be given to apply the provisions of the act, not to extend them.
Further, in the event of civil war in a foreign country the act should be made to apply only when there has been prior recognition by his majesty's government in Canada of the insurgents as belligerents.
There is another point-and while it might be appropriately dealt with when we reach the relevant section, I think it is important to refer to it while discussing the purpose of the bill and the situations for which provision should be made. If enlistment, recruiting, and outfitting and use of ships are not permitted in aid of the armed forces at war with any friendly state, why should not the ban be extended to the sale of arms, munitions and implements of war or material essential to the manufacture thereof? In this connection I should like to quote a summary of the United States neutrality bill as approved by the senate. This summary is from the Montreal Gazette of March 4, 1937:
As soon as he should find that a state of war existed or that a civil war of such dimensions as to threaten the peace or neutrality of the United States was in progress, the following steps would automatically result:
1. An embargo would be placed on all shipments of arms, ammunition and implements of war, and all loans to all belligerents and to all factions in civil strife.
2. It would be unlawful for United States citizens to travel on ships of belligerent registry, except under such regulations as the president might prescribe.
3. All trade with belligerents would go upon a "cash-and-carry" basis. No goods of any kind could be shipped to them from this country except after all right and title therein had been transferred from American nationals to foreigners.
4. American ships could not legally transport to belligerents commodities designated by the president, presumably in accordance with belligerents' own proclamation of contraband of war.
We have before us a bill which no doubt is intended to keep us out of European difficulties. But we are simply prohibiting foreign enlistments; there is no thoroughgoing prohibition of arms and munitions. There is a mention in one case of ships, but prohibitory action is not extended to munitions of war.
A second principle emerges, which is quite different from the principle of the British act. It is contained in section 11, which makes it illegal to recruit or accept any commission or engagement in the armed forces of any foreign state, thus going much farther than the British act. Section 3 prohibits any-
Foreign Enlistment-Mr. Woodsworth
one from enlisting against a friendly state, but this goes farther and makes it illegal to recruit or accept any commission or engagement in the armed forces of any foreign state. Why should not prohibitions which -are directed against assistance to states at war with friendly states also apply against assistance to rebels against a friendly state? An anomalous situation results. If I may quote the words of a friend who wrote to me with regard to this matter, he said:
All recruitment or inducement to enlist in favour of a friendly foreign power immediately becomes unlawful under this section. There is not even the qualification "without a permit" which applies to the unlawful action under section 3 dealing with aid to an enemy of a friendly state. The effect of section 11 is that while recruitment in aid of the armed forces of a friendly state is unlawful, recruitment in aid of the rebellious forces within the state is lawful.