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

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed the honourable the Speaker and Messieurs Adamson, Aylesworth, Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Bruce, Cardiff, Casselman (Grenville-Dundas), Castleden, Emmerson, Eudes, Farquhar, Fontaine, Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Gershaw, Goulet, Graham, Green, Henderson, Howden, Hurtubise, Jaques, Jean, Lizotte, Macdonald (Halifax), MacKenzie (Neepawa), MacKenzie (Lambton-Kent), Macmillan, Marier, Martin, Mayhew, Moore, Poirier, Pouliot, Purdy, Raymond, Reid, Rickard, Ross (St. Paul's), Shaw, Telford, Thauvette, Warren, Winkler, Wood and Woods-worth a committee to assist his honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament, so far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.

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

That on any day set aside for that purpose by the house without notice having been previously given, the sitting of the house shall be a secret session until the house shall then otherwise order, and that all strangers be ordered to withdraw during such secret session; provided however, that this order shall not affect the privilege enjoyed by members of the Senate of being present at debates in this house.

He said: This resolution is similar to one which was passed by this house during the war, in 1918, when a secret session of the House of Commons was held. The motion at that time fixed a definite day. The present motion, as hon. members will see, leaves the date to be arranged by agreement.

In the British House of Commons, in order to protect secrecy, there has been passed under the authority of the Emergency Power (Defence) Act, 1939, the following regulation:

His Majesty, in pursuance of section one of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and of all other pow'ers enabling him in that behalf, is pleased, by and with the advice of his privy council, to order, and it is hereby ordered that regulation three of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939 (a), shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were inserted the following paragraphs:-

(2) If either house of parliament in pursuance of a resolution passed by that house holds a secret session, it shall not be lawful for any person in any newspaper, periodical, circular or other publication, or in any public speech, to publish any report of, or to purport to describe, the proceedings at that session, except such report or description thereof as may be officially communicated through the press and censorship bureau.

The government has thought it advisable to enact a similar regulation, adding it to the defence of Canada regulations, in the following terms:

. 39AA. If the Senate or House of Commons, in pursuance of a resolution, holds a secret session, no person shall in any newspaper, periodical, circular or other publication, or in any public speech, publish any report or description of the proceedings at that session, except such report or description thereof as may be officially communicated through the Speaker of the House.

As to the time of the secret session, I have had a conference with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and also with the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group (Mr. Coldwell) and the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore), and we have agreed that Tuesday afternoon would be the most convenient time at which to

Secret Session of the House

hold the secret session. I might say there is a special reason for selecting Tuesday, inasmuch as the Senate has been adjourned until Tuesday next, and as senators will have the privilege of being present in the gallery when the secret session is held, it would obviously be desirable to have the sitting held on a day that senators were likely to be here. I have nothing else to add at the moment.

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

I do not rise for the purpose of either debating or opposing the resolution to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has referred. I note that the terms of the resolution are quite general; it does not limit the action of the house to any one particular secret session, but it contemplates other secret sessions if they are found necessary or desirable or are asked for. I did not understand that such would be in the motion; however, I am not objecting to that, because it may become necessary to hold further secret sessions.

I am not at all optimistic that a secret session will be of great value, because it seems to me that we cannot possibly use any information which we get there-especially in view of the amendment to the defence of Canada regulations to which the Prime Minister has alluded. At the same time, it will afford to hon. members an opportunity of putting questions to the ministers, and I hope that some useful purpose will be served.

I am curious to know who will prepare the official report which is to be given to the public.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The Speaker.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

It says that?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Not in the

resolution; in the order in council.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Oh, the order in council? I have not had that before me. It, of course, will be official, coming from that source. I am content to leave the matter at that for the moment.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

I am

opposed to the passage of this proposed motion for the reason that it upsets the whole constitutional practice of the British empire since we have been an empire. What does the motion say? I quote:

That on any day set aside for that purpose by the house without notice having been previously given. . . .

You will observe those words, Mr. Speaker, "without notice." In the parliament of Great Britain notice is given, sometimes a week or

ten days ahead. Yesterday notice was given for a two-day session, grand assize to inquire into the whole war, to be held in the open House of Commons but not in secret session. The resolution goes on to say:

. . . the sitting of the house shall be a secret session.

Matters of the utmost importance will be discussed in that session. Talk about having a judge inquire into Hong Kong and Singapore! I have in my hand here volume 377 of the Parliamentary Debates of Great Britain, 173 pages, dealing with all phases of the war in the Pacific and all other theatres. All these questions are discussed in public with pages of criticism. The same is true of Australia.

My first objection to this motion is that the functions of parliament are being taken away from us with all these secret bodies that have been appointed. In fact, parliament is looked upon by the government as a nuisance-here to-day and gone to-morrow. They have closed the doors upon us. The last clause of the resolution declares that the privilege enjoyed by members of the Senate, of being present at debates in this house, shall not be affected -a sop to the senators. Well, the senate have been here for four hours since last June, without duties to perform. Three sessions ago I asked the government so to arrange matters as to provide more work for the other house of parliament. That other house is composed of men of ability and they should be given more to do.

My main objection to the resolution is that no secret committee or private caucus should decide these questions, because we are simply turning over the whole military work of the nation to a political body. Military problems should be dealt with by the military authorities and the army council. Of course, there are certain state secrets that should not be given away even to this parliament. That holds true in the old land. There are state secrets of such importance to the safety of the realm that they should not be divulged even to members of parliament. My objection, however, is taken on this ground, that this is more or less a political body, and we are supposed to meet in public and not in secret. We should not ask the heads of the services to come into this chamber, with the doors locked, in a sort of star chamber, to answer questions. We are only wasting the time of the heads of the departments. Military strategy is for military experts, not for us.

Under responsible government there are ministers who are answerable to parliament, and they are the ones who should answer

Secret Session of the House

here any questions that are to be asked. We have had only a political administration of the war, as I have mentioned before. As regards the troops in England, we were told at the fall session that it would be the government of Canada who in the last resort would say where they should be dispatched. I have the exact words on record here in Hansard of November 6 and 7 last.

The ordinary member of parliament is in a critical position in this war. There are ministers in the government who have the direction of affairs relating to his majesty's forces, and perhaps they cannot always, for reasons of state, give a direct reply to questions. But I do not like to have criticisms of his majesty's forces. There are three splendid soldiers who are in charge of departments having to do with affairs relating to the military forces, and who served their country well in the last war. Criticism is the function of this house, and it should be made in public. Moreover, the opposition has a duty to perform publicly. We should know the facts. That is what is wrong with our war effort. For five years before the war the people were in the dark; they were not given any facts even in this house. They were given just so much information, so much of the facts, as their rulers wanted them to know.

In a war like this, criticism is necessary, and it is the duty of every member of parliament, if he is sincere and considers the issues well, to do what he can to give constructive criticism. This should not be regarded as being necessarily an attack on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or on any member of the government or on the government itself, because no member of any government is infallible. We all make mistakes, even the greatest leaders. Napoleon and Nelson both made their mistakes, and Great Britain has never had a greater leader than its present Prime Minister, no man comparable as a leader except, perhaps, the great Pitt, and yet he made mistakes in the long war with Napoleon.

The question of tactics is one that should be the responsibility of our military commanders and military council. The trouble is that we have been disregarding this principle; that is the reason for most of the mistakes that have been made in the war by the allies. Mistakes have occurred in consequence of political interference with army, naval and air force commanders. That is so in the Pacific and it was so in Libya, Greece and Singapore. The direction of the war, and all questions of strategy, should rest with the militia council, the purely civilian function of administration being the direct responsibility of a war cabinet. And here let me

say that we should have had a war cabinet long ago and an all allied war council also.

I have already said that in my opinion this motion is not in order. If it passes, the rules of the house will be changed.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. I call attention to the fact that the hon. member is committing a breach of the rule to which I referred this afternoon. He is reading his speech.

Mr. CHURCH:

I am referring to the present system and the changes which are being made in our parliamentary practice, and quoting Hansard. I am pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that under our present parliamentary system this motion is not in order, but will be if it passes. There are permanent officials who are able to look into these problems. It should be the duty of the militia council to consider the questions which it is proposed to bring before us. What do I know about military matters? I have never been a military man. and 1 know nothing whatever about military tactics and strategy. I am only a common or garden variety member of parliament. What does the combined membership of this house know about military problems, except for those hon. members who have served overseas? As I say, there are three ministers of the government who have had considerable war experience, and in my opinion we should be very reluctant to take out of their hands and out of the hands of the army council the administration of a war like this. We do not know where it will end.

I do not wish to reflect on our parliamentary system, but even in the old country the Prime Minister there has said that the present political system is not sufficient to cope with all the changes that are taking place. In the old days wars lasted for a few weeks, now they last for years. The enemy is coming pretty close now; we must prepare to meet him at the gate. If we are to change the procedure of parliament, let us do it in a lawful way. I wish to commend you, Mr. Speaker, for the fair way you have presided, because I think not only have you added to the dignity of parliament, but in the last weeks you and your splendid clerk of the house have almost saved parliament itself.

If the government have some new method by which they want to conduct the business of the house, well and good. I contend 'there should be an empire war cabinet, and we should have an allied war cabinet with the United States and the Netherlands in it, so as to have a united effort in this war. The war has now lasted for two and a half years, and what has been done in reference to the houses of parliament? Nothing has been done. In the past two and a half years we

Secret Session of the House

have failed to achieve production sufficient for a total war effort. It is too late to change that system now or the methods which are being used in a parliamentary way. We have staked all the assets of this country on this war to defeat Germany and Japan; we should exert ourselves to get a system and machinery of government which would be more efficient than a proposal to sit in caucus or private session and have questions asked. The enemy I believe are superior in their strategy in these matters.

The method I would propose would be, instead of our meeting in secret, to have an army council and the three ministers meeting with them to decide all these matters of strategy in military affairs. We have made mistakes in the past; I believe they have all made mistakes. The government should not be afraid to tell bhe people of Canada that they have made mistakes, because the people do not expect their leaders and 'governments to be gods. They all make mistakes. But I say if we are to be efficient and achieve our ends in this war, we shall have to be more active. The parliament of Canada too often forgets that we are part of an empire-the British empire. Meeting in secret in this way we forget that we have a duty to the other dominions and the mother country. We should not allow secret meetings to interfere with that duty.

It is contended by some that by having this secret session, members of parliament will be enabled to get some news to reach the public and give members an opportunity to question the government. The effect of the whole thing will, in my opinion, be bad. The other dominions, whose efforts are as great as ours, have been left out of consideration in this motion. In my judgment Canada's parliament should not meet in secret; Canada can afford to state her case and her policy before the court of public opinion of the world. We have a strong case, and the case has been made clear by this parliament. We cannot conduct a grand inquest or assize into this war behind closed doors. I am opposed to the motion.

What about the press? The press of this country has been doing a magnificent work and giving leadership in this war all over Canada. Some journals have raised great war funds, such as the Evening Telegram's British war victims' fund in Toronto; yet the press is being left out in the cold. The press was the main factor in England before the war when all the leaders over there were pacifists and the people listened to the babble of pacifists and tossed away all their defences;

it was the press that opened their eyes and brought them around. They made us realize that the enemy is at our gates.

We have no mandate from the people to upset these constitutional practices by secret meetings in a great war like this. In the last war only one secret meeting was held. The people want to know the facts, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about our war effort. No one wants any military or state secrets revealed; they should not be revealed even at a secret meeting. Some of these secrets should be known only to the king and his military advisers and relate to the defence of the realm.

I shall oppose the motion. The people have not been given sufficient information either before or since the war began. They are totally ignorant of the main problems. On March 21, 1939, on a motion to go into supply I urged the government to give the people the facts, and I quoted what Prime Minister Chamberlain said in England that if the people are not allowed to know the facts concerning the danger at their gates, if they are allowed to know only what their leaders want them to know, that course leads to danger. Within five or six months of that time war was declared, and the people did not know the facts even then.

The motion has connection also with the bureaucrats and boards and1 commissions, numbering, with employees, some 3,500 to

4,000, who have been appointed and are taking away the functions of this parliament whether we meet in public or in private. They have taken our functions; they have upset the rules and regulations and changed the whole purpose and intent of parliament, with their press agents, radio spokesmen and these other officers that have been appointed. About the only intimations and information given to the public that are not under the control of this magnificent information bureau are the Votes and Proceedings and orders of the day. Everything you read has to be stamped with a badge showing it to be issued under the authority, advice and consent of this wonderful department and its minister, this information bureau and the minister thereof, and even at that the public are not getting much information. Then you have a secret service, unnamed spokesmen on the radio almost every night. I call them the ghosts behind the scenes, dealing with all these matters.

Sometimes the information given by this standing army of officials is only half the truth. All kinds of bureaucratic orders are issued by them, involving fines and gaol

Secret Session of the House

penalties over the head of parliament. Gradually the functions of this parliament are being taken away altogether. A civil war was fought in England for nearly one hundred years over Just this question of the control of the public expenditure and to have their representatives in parliament made responsible to the people. Now the principle fought for in that war has been altogether upset. Are we just to act the part of yes-men and nodders of approval of everything the bureaucratic dollar-a-year men pass? Goodness knows they are passing enough. One czar announces he is going to take the cuffs off the trousers of members of parliament, they are going to abolish ties, they are not going to let the well-groomed Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) wear vests any more, and all that kind of thing, and in the women's column and the society column there are pages of what is to be cut out. Who is paying for it over the head of this parliament and we know nothing about it? This is absolutely illegal, and has been done without the consent of the houses of parliament. We have never heard a word about it, yet penalties and fines up to $5,000 are announced every day by these people, who form what is almost a separate parliament by themselves as czars and dictators. The rules and regulations they pass have the force of statutes, without the knowledge and authority of this parliament, but now we are going to impose more secret government upon the people in the way indicated of a secret session of this house. These boards, commissions and so on are usurping the powers of parliament; they even exercise control over members of the cabinet by the orders they issue secretly. Some of this may be and is necessary to a limited extent. The radio is another secret institution. The Department of External Affairs, as I have contended for some years has been conducted as though its business was its own, without parliament being given all the facts.

That is not the way in which things are done in England. There they publicly debated the whole Pacific question, the collapse of Singapore and everything else. The British Hansard contains sixty-five pages of questions and answers and statements made in the house by responsible ministers. Some of the questions were asked in the house by government supporters, admirals, major-generals, some of the finest soldiers to serve in the last war and many of whom are serving in this war as well. All these matters were discussed in public there; and no questions were asked, and no information given, which would reveal any particular military secrets. We are in 44561-47

the very darkest hour of the war, and this is no time to withold anything from either the public or the press. The real facts and the real picture should be given. As I have said, I believe the press has a great function and duty to perform. It is a connecting link between the government and the electors, as members of parliament are; and the censorship over the press, instead of being further extended, should be abolished altogether. In my opinion the opposition have been led into a trap by supporting this move to meet in secret. In Australia the prime minister, Mr. Curtin, and the leader of the opposition, Mr. Hughes, who was in Canada many times during the last war, have spoken strongly on the whole question of publicity and criticism of our war effort and the danger ahead. They have done splendid work in asserting the rights of Australia as a dominion. Sometimes, when I see what little information we are given compared with the information given in the Australian parliament and when I see the dictators at their doors I think we have let Australia down in not making greater efforts to help her by the Singapore base in 1937-38. The very life of the British commonwealth is at stake, yet we go ahead holding secret meetings, plebiscites, and all that sort of thing.

ft is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that anything that might be accomplished in secret, with reference to the Pacific question, could be better accomplished publicly in this house. We have met intermittently; on again, off again, on again; and one branch is here very seldom. Its members have been sent home, with no war work to do. Instead of having this secret meeting of the house, we should hav e a reallocation of duties as between the two houses of parliament, in connection with the war. It may be too late now to do very much about the Pacific coast. Our belated air bases and the proposed road through British Columbia will get us nowhere without the most important thing of all, supremacy on the sea. Information in this connection should be given the house publicly, not in secret.

I have a great deal of respect for the Prime Minister. I believe he has worked hard, and in many ways I think the government have done a good job, except in regard to manpower. But I believe the government misjudged the whole European situation, as well as the Pacific question. I believe it would be far better for the Prime Minister to make a statement in this house, similar to that made in the British house with regard to the Pacific, Singapore, Hong Kong, and all the other places, and have a two-day debate. This is a story that goes back twenty years.

Secret Session oj the House

Canada, as a part of the British empire, has no divine right to expect victory, or that victory may be attained by secret meetings. The path is going to be more difficult from now on. As I said in this house four years ago, on February 12, 1938, we were shortsighted in not backing the Singapore base as New Zealand and Australia did; and now it is too late. The government seems to think there is a royal road to victory, and as a result we have neglected to prepare for war on land, sea or in the air. Victory will come only with resolute leadership, a total war effort, service and real sacrifice. There is no use in talking about victory, as though it would be ours by divine law; we can gam victory only by telling the people the truth, by facing the real facts and building upon the worst of them.

The time has come when Canada must decide w'hether or not she will do her duty, when the government must speak to the people and let them know the facts. Man-power is the main issue, whether it is discussed in public or in secret. By proposing to hold this secret caucus we are upsetting the practice that has existed for the last two or three hundred years. Up to the present all our meetings have been held in public. I often feel that they have not been adequately reported by the press, but often you cannot blame the press because in many ways parliament has simply effaced itself by allowing its functions, privileges and powers to be taken away and given to these bureaucratic boards, with a resulting lack of information. It seems to me the government is always very glad to see the House of Commons go home, to get rid of it, in order to have a breathing spell and conduct the war itself.

I am afraid of this secret meeting; I am afraid we are falling into a trap. I do not want this motion to pass without a protest, because as soon as the motion passes we create a precedent for the separatists and isolationists of the future, for those only too eager and anxious in the future to initiate the methods of Hitler and Mussolini. I believe I represent a large body of public opinion which is opposed to any such principle. I do not want to see the House of Commons dealt with in this way. So far as I know, there is nothing to meet about in private. The question of the security of the Malay peninsula was dealt with in public in the British house, where they have also discussed Libya, Greece, Crete, Singapore, and all the other places. Only the other day Prime Minister Churchill discussed the very thing about which we are to meet in private; and what did he say to the British house? He said we had to send

to Russia tanks, aeroplanes and other equipment that had been destined for Libya and various other places. Then he went on to say that the fall of Singapore had very gravely affected command of the sea; and, after all, it is Britain's command of the sea that enables Russia to obtain supplies of all kinds from the United Kingdom and the United States. At the present time that command is seriously threatened. That was what he told the British House of Commons in public, and that is the very thing about which we are to meet in secret. Unfortunately Japan has obtained temporary' command of the sea in the Pacific. You can meet in secret all you like; Japan has that command, and that is a terrible thing for the British empire.

For the first time in many years we find Great Britain committed to an important campaign in the Pacific at a time when she has commitments in other places. The United States cannot now get a fleet across the Pacific because she has no bases and Singapore has fallen. This is the kind of information we may get, and it has all been given publicly in the British Hansard and by the British Prime Minister. Great Britain and the United States have not full command of the seas because their lines of communication will be broken by raiders. Japan is even in a position to land forces. This is what is happening while we are sitting here.

This is not the time for us to embark upon this new secret course. The losses sustained yesterday in our own navy amounted to 55 men. We have a duty to the rest of the dominions and the rest of the empire. Nothing should be done to change our constitution because we are entering the darkest hour of the war. Great Britain had to do everything alone up until the end of last June. We now have two active allies. Russia has been a revelation and her military strength has saved Great Britain. Otherwise, the mechanized hordes might be now in Great Britain. We are going to have dark days ahead, and I was hoping that some information would be given to the people. I believe the proposed secret session is a retrograde step.

The press has been eliminated by this motion. The press has been a great factor in giving information to the public of this country, and we owe a great deal to it. Were it not for the press and the money it has spent, the people would not know anything. The establishment of the information bureau was a reflection upon our press. During the last war there was no censorship of the press in effect. Mr. Chambers, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod was the censor. We should

Secret Session of the House

follow the lead of England where there is no censorship. The editors of the papers are directly responsible. This will be the first time in the history of this House of Commons where the press has not been present, except the one meeting which was held in the days of Sir Robert Borden.

Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all anxious to get more information, but after we do get the information in the secret session which is to be held, how are we going to impart that to our constituents? The people of the country are the ones who really want information. I know that we as members of parliament will be satisfied, but if the information which we hope to get is given to us then, a tremendous responsibility will be thrown upon us. We will be laying ourselves open to criticism or suspicion if any information given in this secret session should get out. It is a detriment to the freedom of parliament. Of course I am willing to take that chance, as are other members. I have made up my mind that I shall see what comes forth in this secret session, but if I do not think sufficient information is being given, I shall not attend further sessions as a result of which I might lay myself open to criticism.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister if every Tuesday is to be set aside for a secret session. The wording of the motion is:

That on any day set aside for that purpose by the house without notice having been previously given-

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I propose to move a resolution in a moment, fixing Tuesday, February 24, as the day.

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

Will that be every Tuesday?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

No.

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

I do not quite understand how you are going to do it.

Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, before the discussion closes I should like to say a few words because I am very strongly in favour of the holding of a secret session. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) always interests me because he is so typically Conservative. He does not like a change except when it suits his own convenience. As for the argument that this upsets the whole procedure of the British empire for the past several centuries, if we accept this view then perhaps we should regret very much that this same procedure has been upset about once a week during the last year at Westminster itself. We are 44561-471

following good British precedents in holding a session of this description when it is thought necessary.

We want to know something of the government's difficulties. There is information which we cannot get in public because the questions we might ask would give information to the enemy. We are not holding this secret session, as the hon. member for Broadview seems to suggest, in order to badger officials of the Department of National Defence or any other department. I imagine that the only people who will be present at the session will be the responsible ministers, the officials of the house, members of parliament and members of the other place if they care to occupy seats in the gallery. Consequently there will be no opportunity, nor will there be any desire, to pillory anyone in connection with our war effort.

I feel sure that after members of parliament have had the opportunity of asking questions of an intimate nature and receiving replies, they will be in a much better position to decide what questions it is in the public interest to ask the government in the public sessions of parliament. In war time there are matters which we dare not raise on the floor of this house. Several times during the debate on the address some hon. members came very close to asking for information that ought not to have been asked for. On one or two occasions ministers themselves, in placing publicly before the house details regarding equipment and so on, divulged information that might be of interest to the enemy. Of course that was because members of the house sought the information in the only way in which it could be sought.

The object of this secret session, from my own point of view at least, is not to pillory the government, not to indulge in criticism of the government in secret-I shall do that in public-but to gain all the information we possibly can so that we may be able to discuss matters intelligently on the floor of this house.

May I say that I am sorry the government has decided that the inquiry into the Hong Kong affair shall also be held in camera.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The government did not decide that. The chief justice made his own decision.