Mr. G. G. McGEER (Vancouver-Burrard) moved:

That the following unopposed private bills, which have been read a first time, be now given second reading, and that standing order 105 be suspended in relation thereto:

Bill No. 18 (Letter B of the senate), intituled: An act to incorporate General Security Insurance Company of Canada.

Bill No. 26a (Letter A-2 of the senate), intituled: An act respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company Limited.

Bill No. 27 (Letter B-2 of the senate), intituled: An act respecting British Columbia Telephone Company.

Bill No. 29 (Letter D-2 of the senate), intituled: An act respecting the Wawanesa

Mutual Insurance Company.

Also bills Nos. 30 to 56, both inclusive, and bills Nos. 58 and 59.

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) :

This is rather a strange procedure,

and I suggest that this motion has no right to be put at all, at least without notice. So far as we are concerned we have never seen these bills. To give them second reading without having seen them, without notice and without knowing what may be their import, is asking too much. To call them unopposed is wholly unwarranted. They may be unopposed; I do not know anything about them, but certainly I question the desirability of this procedure.

Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):

With regard to one bill which I understood to be called, No. 27, concerning the British Columbia Telephone Company, I am afraid it cannot be considered as unopposed, because I wish to discuss it at some length.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The motion concerns

unopposed bills. Any bill which is opposed of course will be struck out of the motion.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

All of

them may be opposed. Until we know what they are about, we cannot say. To say that they are unopposed, even on the authority of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard which ordinarily I would accept without question, is going pretty far; and at the moment I cannot bring myself to accept that statement unless I know something more about them.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I think it might be possible, by a conference between the leader of the opposition and myself and the leaders

Business oj the House

of the other groups, to agree upon a procedure in the matter of these private bills. Perhaps the motion could stand until that is done.

Motion stands.

1. Has any non-British country the right and power to enforce within Canada, acts, decrees, regulations, etc., made or issued by the said non-British government, ordering its nationals domiciled in Canada to undertake compulsory service in the armed forces of the said government?

2. If so, under what authority?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I should like to say just a word in regard to this question, to point out to the hon. gentleman who has asked it that the question really solicits a legal opinion. If we were to hold strictly to the rules and not establish a precedent which might be very embarrassing I think I would have to ask him to allow me to decline to answer the question. Questions on the order paper are for the purpose of eliciting facts, but not legal opinions or expressions of opinion with respect to theories or other matters. However this is a subject of general interest, and I believe it might be advisable on the whole to clarify what seems to be a matter of doubt in the minds of some. Therefore I shall give an answer. I should like it to be understood however that it must not be cited hereafter as a precedent for giving legal opinions. The answer to the question is as follows:

No non-British country has the right and power to enforce within Canada acts, decrees, regulations, et cetera, made or issued by its government, ordering its nationals domiciled in Canada to undertake compulsory service in its armed forces.

A foreign government, which has a legal system imposing compulsory military service on its nationals abroad, can, under existing international practice, provide for calling them up. Its representatives can bring the call to the attention of the nationals. They cannot exercise any compulsion within Canada in order to induce them to respond to the call.

The national of the foreign government can refuse to respond to the call, without incurring any penalties within this country. On the other hand he will not be able to embark on a 14873-155

ship flying the flag of his home country or enter its territories without subjecting himself to prosecution in his own country.

Under the Foreign Forces Order 1941, the forces of certain allied countries are enabled to maintain their own discipline and internal administration. For such purposes, they can arrest members of their own forces within this country and can call upon Canadian civilian and military police to assist them in maintaining their own discipline. The provisions of the order, however, make it clear that the measures of compulsion do not apply to a person who, while in Canada, has been called up for service under the law of a foreign power and who has failed to comply with such call or to be enrolled in its service.

1. How many men in each military district were called for military service pursuant to the national war services regulations?

2. How many of such men in each military district passed the first medical examination?

3. How many of such men in each military district were granted postponement?

4. How many of such men in each military district reported to camp?

5. How many of such men in each military district failed to respond when ordered to present themselves for medical examination?

6. How many of such men failed to present themselves at the military camp for training when ordered to do so?

7. Have there been any prosecutions for failure under either category?

8. If so, how many prosecutions in each category?

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, if the debate of yesterday is to be proceeded with, a motion will be required, and will have to have the unanimous approval of the house. I gather from reading Hansard that last night there was some doubt in the mind of the minister as to whether we could proceed without a motion. He was of the opinion that we did not require one. However standing order 28 is as follows:

On Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply, or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, provided that, except by the unanimous consent of the house, the estimates of each department shall be first taken up on a day other than Thursday or Friday.

Supply-State oj Agriculture

The motion I would move so as to enable the house to continue the debate on the amendment to go into supply, if there is no objection to continuing that debate, would be the following:

That the provision of standing order 28, in relation to Mr. Speaker leaving the chair without putting any question, be suspended this day, in order to allow debate on the proposed amendment and subamendment to the motion that the house be resolved into committee of supply.

If there is any objection to that motion, of course the house will not be able to proceed.

Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):

Mr. Speaker, may I say a word in connection with this motion? When I raised the matter last night at the adjournment I wished to make it clear that we on this side of the house were not opposed to proceeding with this matter to-day, but as we understood the rules it was not possible so to do except with the unanimous consent of the house. I take it that the motion now before the house regularizes that position.