March 19, 1937

CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

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-

1944 COMMONS

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.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
CON
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I am stating it as my own. The memorandum is from a friend who wrote me in regard to this matter. This is a technical matter; I am not a lawyer, and for that reason I am using the words as given.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
CON
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

No, I am letting the statement stand on its own merits.

Such an act is not forbidden by section 3, because it is not recruitment for a foreign state at war with a friendly power.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Again if my hon. friend would wait we might change this section to satisfy him.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I am very glad to hear it.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

I thought I told the hon. member I would.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

No, there is still another section.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Ai speech having been prepared, it has to be delivered.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

No, it is not because it was prepared and has to 'be delivered. That remark is hardly fair. On account of the importance of the subject I did give some study to it, and asked, one or two of my legal friends to advise me in regard to certain sections, and I think it is only fair that I should present the case at this stage, because the bill has to be considered as a whole; unless we give consideration to sections 11 and 19 we can hardly deal with the important section 3.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Why not wait until we reach those sections?

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Well, as I have already said, there are two or three principles involved.. I wonder if I might be permitted to proceed for a few minutes more. I continue this statement:

Such an act is not forbidden by section 3, because it is not recruitment for a foreign state at war with a friendly power. It is not forbidden by section 11, because the enlistment is not "in the armed forces of the foreign state." Recruitment in aid of the armed forces of a friendly power is at all times unlawful, while recruitment in aid of the armed rebels within such a friendly power is lawful, and remains lawful unless power to declare otherwise is secured under section 19(1) (a). It is dubious whether such power is secured under 19(1)(a).

There is one other section which I think is very important. Section 14 takes away trial by jury. The explanatory note states that it is designed to enable the prosecuting authority to proceed1 summarily in the manner provided by part XV of the criminal code, in cases of minor importance. I suggest that this is not a matter of minor importance.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

This I will not change.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Well, I regret that we should here be deprived of the right of trial by jury in a very important matter. I hope the government will see its way clear to accept such amendments as will clarify the situation and provide for thoroughgoing neutrality, and that parliament, not the governor in council, shall decide whether our nationals shall engage in. war.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink

Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair. On section 1-Short title.


LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

I wish to thank the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) for the illuminating address he gave this afternoon on the various enactments and statutes which apply to Canada. I thoroughly agree with him that the present anomalous situation should be remedied, and I believe his suggestion that this should be made a special undertaking is a good one. I do not know whether the advisers in the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Justice can do it properly in the limited time at their disposal, but someone will have to do it. I agree entirely with everything my hon. friend has said in that respect.

As far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is con-

Foreign Enlistment

cernedi, he says he is in favour of the principle of the bill, and I am pleased that he is. But I cannot agree with his statement that the bill permits things which should be prohibited, that it will make it easier to do things which should not be done. I understood my hon. friend to say that instead of restricting, the bill would permit certain things to be done.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

If I may say so, I was dealing with section 3 and the following sections which contain the words "without a permit."

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

If my

hon. friend could see the hundreds of telegrams I have received from people who are opposed to this bill he would see that they are not objecting because it gives them more freedom to enlist for service in European wars.

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Would the minister explain the meaning of the words "without a permit"?

Topic:   FOREIGN ENLISTMENT
Permalink

March 19, 1937