If it is desired, copies can be made available for the information of hon. members. As to the other information requested, might that stand over until the beginning of the week, so that an appropriate answer may be prepared?

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Surely.

Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I gave notice of a question or rather a series of questions that I intended to

Unemployment Insurance

ask to-day of the Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). My questions arise out of a picture which appeared some days ago in the Winnipeg Tribune depicting the delivery of an unemployment insurance cheque to a young man, twenty years of age, unmarried and living at home. Since unemployment insurance is denied to those who can secure employment or who have been given an opportunity for employment, I should like to ask the minister the following questions.

Why was this young man, who is apparently able-bodied and intelligent, not transferred to some work or occupation suitable to him where his services might be utilized instead of paying out unemployment insurance to him? And arising out of that question: Have the national employment or regional committees transferred unemployed men to such positions as are vacant and available within or without the province where such persons were living at the time they became unemployed? If so, how many persons who would otherwise be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits have been transferred in that manner? Finally, how many unemployed employables are there in Canada to-day?

Mr. SPEAKER:

The questions asked by the hon. member really should not be asked on the orders of the day.

Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Acting Minister of Labour):

I have no objection to answering the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) with such information as I have. The case to which he refers has perhaps received some publicity because it was the first cheque paid out for benefits under the unemployment insurance fund. The young man in question was an usher in a theatre, and the employment service has been and is still endeavouring to secure him work. Not being a robust young man, he could not join the forces and cannot take on heavy work. In other words, he is pretty much limited to the class of work he was doing or work of a clerical nature.

With reference to the second question about the transfer of unemployed workers, I am advised that the employment offices are endeavouring to secure employment for any unemployed by every possible means, by transfer if necessary, provided they are willing to be transferred.

I am sorry that I have not had sufficient time to get the figures as to the unemployed employables, but I shall be glad to furnish my hon. friend with that information.

[Mr. Di. fenbaker.l

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Do I understand that t'he minister does not intend to make a statement?

Mr. McLARTY:

My intention was to make a statement.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Now is the time to make it, before Mr. Speaker leaves the chair.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

It could be made in committee of the whole.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I think the minister ought to make a statement now because there are certain members who want to speak on this resolution.

Mr. McLARTY:

There is no objection to following that procedure. I thought possibly the statement could have been made in committee of the whole, but it does not make any difference, certainly as far as I am concerned. In rising to move this resolution standing in my name, I realize that in some respects it is unique. A resolution of this kind is usually moved to accord the house and the committee an opportunity of considering the legislation which will be based upon it and of dealing with the matter in a general and not a detailed way. In the case of this resolution, however, the situation is somewhat changed. Ever since the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne commenced, most, if not all, of the attention of the house has been directed to the particular subject matter of the resolution which I am now moving. There were other important matters mentioned in the speech from the throne, but they were more or less neglected, or at least not extensively referred to. For that reason, I feel that I can best occupy the time of this house if I do not traverse the ordinary course which would ordinarily be traversed with a resolution of this kind, but deal with the particular

Plebiscite Act-Mr. McLarty

features of the enactment which it is proposed to have follow the passing of this resolution.

Now that the holding of the plebiscite has been decided upon, I believe it will be the wish of this house that it be proceeded with in the fairest manner possible, in the speediest manner possible and in the most inexpensive manner possible. That being the situation, 1 think I can best use the time of the house in dealing with certain particular features of the enactment.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the remarks which you made earlier in the day about hon. members not reading statements, that in the statement which I propose to give this afternoon there is nothing argumentative; I trust it is largely expository and explanatory. If I refer to my notes somewhat extensively, it will be only for the purpose of contracting the time that otherwise it would be necessary to take to deal with this resolution and perhaps of not overlooking some of the more important features. I shall endeavour, however, to trespass upon your injunction to the smallest possible degree.

This will not be the first plebiscite bill to be enacted in Canada. Hon. members are aware that the prohibition plebiscite act was passed by the parliament of Canada in 1898. One of the outstanding features of that act- it was not a lengthy one-was that it did not reenact any election act; it enacted the specific legislative features that were necessary to found the legislation upon and then left to directions the creation of the appropriate machinery and the procedure that would be followed. In the ease of this enactment, it is suggested that a similar course be followed, that we do not try to reenact the whole election act, as we did in 1938, but that we enact essential legislative features, leaving to regulations, which regulations will be modeled as closely as possible upon the provisions of the election act, to provide the machinery which will be necessary to give force and effect to the plebiscite bill.

There will be another difference between the present bill and the act enacted in 1898. It is not proposed to put in this measure the exact wording of the plebiscite or the date upon which the plebiscite will be held. The wording has already been given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and that wording, together with the date, will be incorporated in a proclamation, provision for which is made in the bill itself.

It is proposed also that after the bill has received its second reading, it will be submitted to a special committee of the house for consideration. To that committee

will be submitted, not only the bill itself but the regulations and the forms which will be promulgated after the passage of the bill.

This course appears to have a number of advantages. In the first place, the regulations must necessarily be lengthy. They will consist of two major divisions-those dealing with the Canadian service voters and those dealing with the ordinary voters in Canada. When combined, these regulations will comprise something like one hundred and thirty sections, and, when printed, cover about one hundred and twenty-five pages; and it is thought, bearing in mind the opportunity possessed by a special committee of receiving submissions and taking evidence, that they would receive a more thorough and, as well, a more expeditious consideration if, in the first instance, they were discussed1 in the special committee rather than in committee of the whole house.

As a safeguard, the bill will provide that the regulations shall, as near as may be, conform to the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and, in the matter of taking the vote of Canadian service voters, to the method employed at the last general election.

The bill consequently, Mr. Speaker, will not be a lengthy one. It will have but ten sections. Of these, several are of a nature which will require very little discussion, and for that reason I shall not deal with them at this time.

Perhaps the most important sections of the bill are those which provide for qualifications and disqualifications of voters. But before dealing in a general way with those sections, might I make one or two preliminary observations on the general principles which have been considered in the framing of the bill.

In the first place, it is the desire of the government and will, I believe, be the desire of parliament that the fullest possible opportunity shall be accorded to the people of Canada to express their views upon the particular question which will be submitted. On the other hand, it is equally desired that this expression will not be stifled by any undue restriction on those who will be permitted to vote.

In the second place, it is recognized that while the pledge was given to the qualified voters of Canada, there are certain classes of voters who, because of war-time conditions, must necessarily be excluded from voting, and others who, on account of their religious beliefs, would not in any event be affected by the giving of the pledge. Bearing in mind these observations, there are two classes

Plebiscite Act-Mr. McLarty

of voters for whom the bill provides: (1) the Canadian service voter; and (2) the ordinary voter.

(1) The' definition of a Canadian service voter is an extremely wide one and is made as ample and complete as could be devised. This provision in the act has only two restrictions, namely, that he or she be a British subject and at the time he or she became a member of such forces or corps, was ordinarily resident in Canada.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Is there any age limit?

Mr. McLARTY:

I was just coming to that.

Service may be performed within Canada or any other part of the world, but their right to vote is definitely ensured. Whether they are or are not over twenty-one years of age is not a restriction.

(2) But in the ease of the ordinary voter, different considerations apply and the explanation cannot be as brief.

The general qualifications applying to electors under the election act apply in the plebiscite. Any voter must be a British subject, must be twenty-one years of age at the date of polling, must have been ordinarily a resident of Canada for twelve months prior to the polling date and ordinarily resident in the polling division on the twenty-eighth day before polling day.

There are necessarily some disqualifications, and with these I should now like to deal.

(a) In the first place, I would point out that those who are disqualified from voting under the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, will be disqualified from voting at the plebiscite.

(b) In addition, every interned person will be disqualified.

(c) In addition, too, every person resident in Canada whose racial origin is that of a country at war with Canada, if such person would be disqualified by reason of race in any one of the provinces of Canada while residing therein from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of that province, and who did not serve in the naval, military or air forces of Canada in the great war, as defined in the Pension Act, or in the war declared by his majesty on the tenth day of September, 1939, against the German reich and subsequently other powers.

The purpose of this section can be best illustrated by a concrete example. Suppose a citizen of Japanese origin were permitted to vote, the fact that he was permitted to do so would be resented. It would quite possibly result in some measure of public disorder.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Is that an extension of the present principle, or is it the same principle?

Mr. McLARTY:

It is the same to this extent. The present principle, under section 14(2) of the Dominion Elections Act excludes from voting in a dominion election any person who is excluded from voting in any province. This is an exception to this extent, that if they are excluded in any particular province and are of enemy origin, they are excluded from voting on the plebiscite. By a country of enemy origin I mean if they originate from a country with which Canada is at war. The only limitation is to the extent to which any particular race may be excluded 'by provincial legislation.

Mr. STIRLING:

Does that apply only to that province or to all Canada?