CHANGE IN PERSONNEL OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the name of^Mr. Pelletier be substituted for that of Mr. Kuhl on the select standing committee on privileges and elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
Department op agriculture-employees
['1.\tGrain and grain products.\n2.\tAll such commodities are carried at Crowsnest Pass agreement rates.\n3.\tPresent rates on grain and flour irom points on the Canadian Pacific Railway to Fort William are those provided for by the Crowsnest Pass agreement with that railway, and are:-\nRates per 100 lbs\nMiles to Fort William\tCents\n419-1\t 14\n419-1 to\t474-7\t\n15474-7to\t552-2\t\n16552-2 to 577-0\t\n17577[DOT] 0 to 683-1\t\n18683-1 to 742-5\t\n19742-5 to 817-1\t\n20817-1 to 851-8\t\n21851-8to\t927-5\t\n22927-5 to 1012-0\t\n231012-0to 1119-1\t\n241119-1 to 1191-0\t\n251191-0 to 1251-8\t\n26\nThese Crowsnest rates were made applicable to Canadian National Railways by amendment to the Railway Act in 1925, chapter 52.']
Mr. BOULANGER:: What are the names, occupations and salaries of employees of the Department of Agriculture or of individuals whose work is paid for or controlled by the Department of Agriculture and who, performing their duties in French Canada, do not know sufficient French to make themselves understood by the men with whom they come in contact and to explain to them the object, aims and advantages of the laws which they administer?


Mr. RINPRET:: The department keeps no record from which this question could be answered. I might point out, however, that the matter involved is already the subject of a bill which has passed its second reading, and which will be referred to a special committee to consider the operation of the Civil Service Act.



Mr. LAWSON:: 1.	What were the total number of hours of
broadcasting on station CBL during the weeks commencing January 1, 1938, January 8, 1938, January 15,	1938, January 22,	1938, and
January 29, 1938?
2.	What number of hours of such broadcasting on such station were: (a) programs originating in Canada (sustaining or commercial); (b) programs originating in the United States (sustaining or commercial) ?
3.	Of such programs originating in the United States what number of hours were commercial programs for which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were paid?
4.	In each case where the same commercial program originating in the United States was broadcast over station CBM at Montreal, please indicate.


Mr. HOWE:: The following information has been supplied by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:
1.	January 1, 1938, 111.45 hours; January 8, 1938, 112.00 hours; January 15, 1938, 112.00 hours; January 22, 1938, 112.00 hours; January 29, 1938, 112.00 hours-Total, 559.45 hours.
2.	(1) Programs originating in Canada:
(a)	Sustaining:	January 1,	1938, 47.00
hours; January 8, 1938, 46.30 hours; January 15, 1938, 48.00 hours; January 22, 1938, 45.45 hours; January 29, 1938, 45.55 hours-Total, 233.10 hours.
(b)	Commercial: January 1, 1938, 16.00 hours; January 8, 1938, 16.35 hours; January 15, 1938, 17.20 hours; January 22, 1938, 19.50 hours; January 29, 1938, 18.20 hours-Total, 88.05 hours.
Total in Canada, 321.15 hours.
IMr. Mackenzie King.]
(2)	Programs originating in the United States:
(a) Sustaining:	January 1,	1938,	30.30
hours; January 8, 1938, 30.40 hours; January 15, 1938, 28.40 hours; January 22, 1938, 28.25 hours; January 29, 1938, 29.30 hours-Total,
147.45	hours.
Ob) Commercial: January 1, 1938, 18.15 hours; January 8, 1938, 18.15 hours; January 15, 1938, 18.00 hours; January 22, 1938, 18.00 hours; January 29, 1938, 18.15 hours-Total,
90.45	hours.
Total hours in United States-238.30 hours.
3.	90.45 hours.
4.	The following commercial programs originating in the United States were also broadcast over Station CBM at Montreal:
January 1, 1938-Jell-0 (Jack Benny), Jer-gens-Woodbury Program, Campbell Soups (Amos 'N Andy), Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, S. C. Johnson and Son (Fibber McGee and Molly), General Electric "Hour of Charm", Carnation Milk Company, Tender Leaf Tea, Royal Gelatine (Rudy Vallee), Maxwell House Coffee "Good News of 1938", Kraft Music Hall (Bing Crosby).
January 8, 1938-Same as above.
January 15, 1938-Same as above.
January 22, 1938-Same as above.
January 29, 1938-Same as above with the addition of Borden Company "Hughes Reel".


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COAL PURCHASES
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	What prices have been paid during the
past two years, and are now being paid, by the Canadian National Railways for coal purchased in: (a) New Brunswick, and (b) Nova Scotia, giving number of tons purchased, and price per ton?	'
2.	Is an allowance made to the railway for the cost of hauling Nova Scotia coal to New Brunswick points ?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	It has not been the practice to make public prices paid by Canadian National Railway management for materials and supplies, though such information is made available to the select standing committee on railways and shipping, if requested.
2.	No subvention, but such shipments would secure benefit of the 20 per cent reduction from normal tolls, as provided by the Maritime Freight Rates Act.


CROWSNEST PASS AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PERLEY;
1.	What classes of goods were carried by the railroads at special rates under the Crowsnest Pass agreement during the year 1937?

Questions as Orders for Returns
2.	Which of such commodities are carried at the same or less rates than provided for in the Crowsnest Pass agreement?
3.	What is the present rate on each of such commodities, and what was provided for by the Crowsnest agreement?
Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Grain and grain products.
2.	All such commodities are carried at Crowsnest Pass agreement rates.
3.	Present rates on grain and flour irom points on the Canadian Pacific Railway to Fort William are those provided for by the Crowsnest Pass agreement with that railway, and are:-
Rates per 100 lbs
Miles to Fort William	Cents
419-1	 14
419-1 to	474-7	
15474-7to	552-2	
16552-2 to 577-0	
17577[DOT] 0 to 683-1	
18683-1 to 742-5	
19742-5 to 817-1	
20817-1 to 851-8	
21851-8to	927-5	
22927-5 to 1012-0	
231012-0to 1119-1	
241119-1 to 1191-0	
251191-0 to 1251-8	
26
These Crowsnest rates were made applicable to Canadian National Railways by amendment to the Railway Act in 1925, chapter 52.



QUESTIONS REFERRING TO STATEMENTS APPEARING ON HANSARD

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, referring
to one or two of the questions on to-day's order paper, may I say I do not think the government should be asked if its attention has been called to something that appears on Hansard. Questions of that kind are much too wide of the mark. If an hon. member wishes to get specific information on any point, he should state the point himself. I mention the matter not to pass over the questions at the moment, but rather in the hope that this type of question will not be asked in the future.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LAWSON:: 1. What quantity or acreage of property was purchased by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during the years 1936 and/or 1937 near Hornby, nineteen miles west of Toronto for a 50,000 watt broadcasting station?
2.	What price was paid therefor?
3.	From whom was the property purchased?
4.	What person or persons acted as agent for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, if any?
5.	What commission, if any, was paid such agent by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
6.	Were any valuations obtained by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from independent valuators before such purchase was made?
7.	If so, who were the valuators?
8.	What was paid to each of such valuators for such services?
9.	What capital expenditures were made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during the years 1936 and 1937 for the acquisition of the properties for the construction of the 50,000 watt broadcasting stations or broadcasting towers other than at Hornby, nineteen miles west of Toronto?
10.	What are the locations of any such properties so purchased?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DEFICITS AND GRAIN SHIPMENTS
Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	What were the deficits of the Canadian National Railways for each of the years 1922 to 1937 inclusive?
2.	How many carloads of grain of all kinds were hauled by the Canadian National Railways from prairie provinces during each of the years 1922 to 1937 inclusive, to (a) Vancouver elevators; (b) great lakes elevators; (c) Port Churchill elevator?



RAVENSCRAG, SASK., FARMERS LACK OF FEED FOR LIVE STOCK AND NEED OF RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, may I draw the attention of the government-I note the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is not in his place- to the fact that I have been informed by a group of farmers in the Ravenserag district in Saskatchewan that they have had no feed or fodder except two cars of feed since the first of February, their stock are starving, there is three feet of snow in that locality, and relief is very urgent. I draw attention to the fact in order that the government may take the steps that are necessary for dealing with the situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my right hon. friend for drawing the -attention of the government to this matter, and if it has not already received attention, I can assure him that it will.

Diversion of Water



UNEMPLOYMENT AND AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), but before doing so I should like to read, with the permission of the house, a telegram I have received to-day from R. J. Waterous, mayor of the city of Brantford.
Brantford very much concerned over refusal of federal government to increase grant in aid of province of Ontario, which possibly means a considerable reduction by the province to Brantford towards the cost of relief, thus materially increasing the burden of relief on the municipality. Please use every effort on the federal government to increase grant to province.
I would ask the minister if there has been any change in the basis of the grant to the province and whether any reduction has been made in the amount of the grant.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): In answer to the question just put to me by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Macdonald), I would say that the grant in aid to the province of Ontario for the months of October, November and December was set at $465,000 per month. Under the terms	of	the	agreement	now	before	theprovince, the grant remains at $465,000 per month as a maximum, or thirty per cent of the total cost of material aid in the province, whichever amount is the lesser. That is the arrangement which is incorporated in the terms	of	the	agreement	now	before	the
Ontario government.



RULE AS TO ANTICIPATION OF ACTION OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I have given notice to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) about a feature of my recent question which is not covered in the answer: I refer to an announcement made in the press by the minister yesterday that he had rejected Ontario's offer of 40, 40 and 20. I wish to know whether that decision is final; because I would direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order regarding the minister's answer, to motion number 11, page 12 of the order paper, which was placed there on January 27, before this deputation was received, and to citations 243 and 393 as set out in Beauehesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. The effect of paragraph 243 is that you are not to anticipate the action of parliament on a question if it is to come

before the house soon. This motion was on the order paper on January 27; it was to come before the house so soon that only two motions were ahead of it, yet the minister has given his answer over the head of parliament, without letting the Ontario or Toronto members know. I would ask your honour to consider the point and give your decision to-morrow or the next day.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I will look into the matter raised by the hon. member.



DIVERSION OF WATER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: In today's newspapers there is a dispatch from Washington quoting congressman Andrews as having read to the United States congress a letter from Premier Hepburn of Ontario making certain proposals to raise the water level of the great lakes by diverting into lake Superior the waters of two rivers in northern Ontario. In this connection, may I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he has altered his position in this connection from that expressed by him in a letter to Mr. Stewart Lyon, then the chairman of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission, on September 7, and referred to in a Toronto Telegram editorial on January 24 last, namely "that he"-the Prime Minister-"does not propose even to ask the United States authorities for their provisional consent by letter to the diversion of Long Lac water into lake Superior." Apparently Mr. Lyon, in a communication with the press, quoted the Prime Minister's letter of September 7.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not recall in its entirety the letter to which my hon. friend has just referred. I am inclined to think that the reference he has made covers only a part of the letter, and it will be necessary for hon. members to have the entire letter before them in order to see precisely what was said. I imagine the only way whereby hon. members can satisfy their minds as to exactly what has taken place in correspondence, between the government at Ottawa and the government at Toronto, and between Ottawa and Washington, is to have all the correspondence printed and tabled, not only that on the question of the diversion of waters of the great lakes and the rivers but also

Cost of Living
with respect to the St. Lawrence waterway project, and with respect also to questions of the export of power.
Anticipating that all of these matters would come up for discussion at this session, I gave instructions some time ago to have the correspondence brought together and prepared for the printer so that it could be brought down in printed form at an early date in this session. The premier of Ontario has already given publicity to a good part of the correspondence relating to the question of the export of power and to other matters which relate to the larger project. I think it may be assumed that he has no objection to all the correspondence being tabled; in fact it has been so stated. It has been necessary to ask the United States government whether there was any objection on their part to having all the correspondence tabled, and they have replied that they have no objection; It is the wish of our government that all of the correspondence should be tabled, so I hope that early next week it will be possible to present to the house in the form of a white paper-it will be a book of some small dimensions-all of the correspondence on these three important subjects.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I would like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) why and by what authority the arrangement to broadcast an address by R. L. Calder, K.C., of Montreal, was cancelled last evening by station CKCL? Mr. Calder was speaking under the auspices of the United Automobile Workers of America, on civil liberties, from Oshawa.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend gave notice yesterday of this question. I communicated immediately with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and found that they had no knowledge of the subject matter of his question. However I asked the officers to make inquiries, and to-day I am advised that Mr. Bailey of the United Automobile Workers of America, applied to private station CKCL for time on the station to broadcast an address by Mr. Calder from Oshawa. The station advises the corporation that they discussed the matter with their own officials and decided on their own initiative that they did not want to carry the address, and in communicating their reply to Mr. 51952-34^
Bailey they stated that their decision was their own, and had nothing to do with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.



COST OF LIVING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) on Tuesday referred to letters he had received from Toronto with regard to increased prices of food and other commodities. I stated at that time I would inform the hon. member as soon as possible what action might be taken under dominion jurisdiction to deal with this matter.
In reply to his question I think it would not be advisable to adopt the hon. member's suggestion of setting up a committee on this matter at the present time, having regard to the constitutional limitations to which he has referred and the fact that matters connected with the constitutional powers of the dominion government and the governments of the provinces are now being investigated. If there are grounds for believing that trade combinations are fixing prices to the detriment of the public, the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act may be invoked in the regular manner by the hon. member's correspondents or others who know of the existence of such combinations. For the investigation of matters of price which are dealt with under provincial legislation, as in the case of milk, the provisions of the provincial legislation may similarly be invoked.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. 0. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) moved the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: I do not think it is necessary for me to say very much about this bill. It contemplates a minor amendment to the Railway Act, and it speaks for itself. It is hardly necessary to say that the bill is presented with the best of intentions. Its purpose is to afford some measure of relief to farmers who have difficulties with big railway corporations.
Section 203 of the general Railway Act gives the railway companies permission on or after the first day of November of each year to
Railway Act-Snow Fences
[Stage Direction]
enter upon private lands alongside a railway and to erect snow fences on those private lands belonging to farmers. These snow fences cause the snow to accumulate on the land to a depth sometimes of twenty-five or thirty feet. I submit that this right which is given to the railway companies is absolutely out of the ordinary. It gives the companies power to enter upon property that does not belong to them. Of course, it is of great advantage to the railway companies, for it enables them to effect a great saving in labour and material. I do not think it is proper that the railways should have the right to make such a considerable saving at the expense of poor farmers.
It is true that at the present time section 203 of the act gives to the farmers the right to apply to the courts for redress; but eveiyone with experience in the practise of law knows that such a right involves a good deal of expense, much delay and a lot of trouble. The purpose of the bill is to provide a more expeditious, easy and economical way of settling these claims than by obliging the farmers to go to law. The damages sustained by the farmers are evident. These snow fences, especially those of more recent design, cause the snow to accumulate, as I have said, to a depth of twentj'-five or thirty feet, and that snow remains on the ground for a very long time in the spring.
Richard Bedford Bennett: They must be removed on the first of April.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Yes, the snow fences are removed on the first of April, but the snow is not; the snow remains on the ground and only the sun can dispose of it. Take as an illustration my own parish of St. Charles de Bellechasse where I was born and brought up. That parish was settled about the middle of the eighteenth century. In fact it was established in 1745. The railway through that parish was built in 1855, and it is no fault of the farmers if their farm buildings, their orchards and their gardens are in proximity to the line. Their farms, their gardens and their orchards were there before the railway was built. The railway was built through the most settled part of the country, through farms, adjacent to buildings and houses, through vegetable and strawberry patches, gardens, orchards and so on. What happens is this. In the fall the railway people enter upon these farms without permission and erect snow fences. True, on the first of April these fences are removed but the snow remains for quite a long time. Sometimes it is there until June. It leaves the land entirely unsuitable for vegetable and fruit growing especially, and also causes fruit trees

to freeze and die. It is responsible for considerable damage, and the only recourse of the farmers is to go to law, running the risk of having their cases dragged from the court of first instance to the court of appeal, and incurring a lot of costs.
I propose to do away with this system and have the board of railway commissioners decide upon these eases. As everyone knows, the board of railway commissioners is not bound by any strict rules of procedure. It settles cases in an equitable and amicable way, and it is not obliged to observe the rules of procedure that are followed in courts of law. That is one advantage; but the major advantage is, of course, that before the board of railway commissioners there are no costs. It is a poor man's court, because there is no tariff of fees applicable to cases heard before the board. This would be a great advantage to the farmers. Another advantage would be that the board of railway commissioners could settle these cases once for all. The board could have their engineers or their officials look into the situation on any farm and come to a fair conclusion as to what the damages might be from year to year, and with that estimate before them could make a definite settlement once for all of such claims. A settlement of this kind cannot be made in the ordinary courts because those courts can only assess damages that have already occurred; they cannot give anything for damages which a plaintiff has not yet suffered. Moreover, they are obliged to adjudicate upon cases where the damages have occurred within two years of the date of submission of the claim to the courts. According to the law of the province of Quebec-and I believe it is pretty much the same in the other provinces-claims for damages of this description are outlawed after two years, and so the farmers in our section have to take action every two years for settlement. The board of railway commissioners is not bound by the civil code of the province of Quebec or by the rules of procedure of that province, and under the Railway Act it could be provided that the board shall settle all these claims once for all-with regard not only to damages that have already been sustained but also to any damages which farmers are likely to suffer in the future.
Last year when the bill was presented to the house the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) had a few objections to make. One was that the board did not wish to take on any more work. That is only natural. They think that they already have enough to do. I do not believe, however, that this bill would result in any great increase in the work they

Railway Act-Snow Fences
have to do. Their duties would be increased only to an infinitesimal extent, and I am sure that if they look at the matter again they will decide that their objection is not a very serious one. They might have one case or two or three or four cases a year in a section of the country where there was a great accumulation of snow, but that is not the condition in all parts of Canada. Another of their objections, as the minister told us last year, was that the litigants would have to come to Ottawa to plead their cases. In practice this is no objection, because in practice litigants do not travel to appear before the board of railway commissioners; the members of the board travel to meet the litigants. They go about the country, to Regina, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec, Rimouski, Halifax, as the case may be, and meet the litigants where the litigation arises and the witnesses are available and the record exists. Therefore the objection does not seem very serious; there would be no change in the procedure of the board because it is travelling already. The only difference would be that instead of having five or six cases at a session in Winnipeg, for example, they might have seven or eight.
Another objection which was raised by the minister last year was that there now is a system of arbitration provided for the settlement of these cases. Under that system the complainant and the railway company each appoint an arbitrator, and a third arbitrator is appointed by a judge. In regard to this arbitration system I think the minister has been misinformed. It applies in the case of lands required for the construction of railways, but, if I read the law correctly, it does not apply to damages caused by the operation of a railway. When damage is caused by railway operation complainants have to go before the ordinary courts; it is like any other action for damages. You have to take action in the ordinary way, follow the procedure, and run all the risks of cases in courts.
This risk of costs results in great injury to the farmer, because it is exploited to the limit by the railway claims agents. I do not blame them for that; it is their job to discourage claims against the railways, and they use all the arguments that they can invoke. They go to the farmer who has a claim against the railway company on the ground that his land was covered by thirty feet of snow, thus preventing the planting of potatoes or strawberries in time, or whose fruit trees have been damaged or killed by frost during the winter on account of accumulation of snow, and they say: We will fight you in the courts; your farm will be
eaten up in costs if you do not accept the offer we are making. And of course the poor farmer gets scared and accepts in settlement of his claim an amount which is perhaps a mere fraction of the real damage he has suffered.
If these claims could come before a tribunal where there is no risk of costs it would be a great service to the farmers. I am sure the board of railway commissioners is competent to adjudicate on these small damage actions. I do not know all the members of the board but I know a few of them; for instance I know well the chairman and the vice-chairman. They are capable lawyers of great experience; they have been in public life, and they possess the milk of human kindness. I am confident that they would be able to deal with these cases admirably, and would deal with them in the interest of and to the advantage of the farmers.
I will not say more, sir, because the bill speaks for itself. The arguments in favour of it are self-evident, and I commend it to the consideration of the house.


Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):: I rise to say a word in support of this bill. I am pleased that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) has brought the matter before the house. It is a great inconvenience and cause of loss to farmers to have these snow fences erected on their farms. But the railway companies are not the greatest sinners in that regard; provincial, county and in some cases municipal highways are protected in the same way. The railways and the provincial and municipal authorities, without asking the farmer's consent, go on his property and erect snow fences, probably twenty-five yards inside the road fence. These snow fences catch a very large amount of snow during the winter. I have seen field after field where by reason of the accumulation of snow it was ten days to two weeks after the rest of the field was sown before the farmer could cultivate that land along the road. Also I have seen the crop there damaged, because a late crop is never as good as one sown earlier.
It has always seemed to me a great injustice that public bodies can go on a farmer's land in this way. I speak from personal experience. In some cases the fences are not removed by April 1. The inconvenience to the farmer is considerable and something should be done. I am heartily in accord with the provisions of the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill makes a substantial change in the method of dealing with cases affecting
534	COMMONS
Government Railways Act-Snow Fences
snow fences adjacent to railways. It cancels the present method of dealing with such cases, and provides a new one. Perhaps in order to refresh our memories I might read the relevant section of the Railway Act:
203. Every railway company may, on and after the first day of November, in each year, enter into and upon any lands of His Majesty or of any person lying around the route or line of the railway, and erect and maintain snow fences thereon, subject to the payment of such land damages, if any actually suffered, as are thereafter established, in the manner provided by law with respect to such railways.
By this bill the words "in the manner provided by law" are to be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
. . . by mutual agreement, and failing such agreement, by the board of railway commissioners for Canada, who shall determine and fix the compensation to be paid the owner by way of damages. Such compensation shall be determined and fixed by the board, where possible, in respect to future as well as present or past damages suffered by the said owner.
I think my hon. friend misunderstood my objection of last year, when he said it was that the board of railway commissioners would be overworked. I admit at once that the board of railway commissioners is one branch of the government that is not overworked at the present time, and I have no objection to this bill on that score. I do believe, however, and it is the opinion of my own officers and of the railway board, that the present method of disposing of these claims is less cumbersome, more expeditious and apt to be more just than the method now suggested in substitution therefor.
The present procedure is very simple. The railway and the person damaged attempt to reach an agreement. If they fail they go to the local judge, who practically acts as arbitrator between the two parties. If either party is dissatisfied with the decision of the local judge that decision can be appealed to the higher court in the province, but unless the amount in question is in excess of $5,000 the appeal is limited to one higher court. In that way it becomes a local matter. The hen. gentleman who made this motion said that the question involves the height of the snowdrifts, the damage to trees and a number of other considerations in connection with which local knowledge is of immense importance in arriving at a decision. Usually the parties to the dispute, including the judge, are residents of the locality. They understand these matters and are able to arbitrate the case in a satisfactory manner.
As I say, this bill sets aside that procedure. No longer will it be possible to place the matter before the local judge. It now becomes mandatory that the case be brought before

the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. I will admit at once that it is a debatable point whether this is a better procedure than the other, but I might point out that the railway commission would be strangers to the locality in question. It is true that once a year, or perhaps once in two years, the board travels from coast to coast holding sittings at various centres, but even hearings of that kind will not make the board familiar with the particular facts in disputes of this kind. I question very much whether the decision of the board would be more just or more acceptable to both parties than the decision rendered under the present procedure.
There is, of course, another matter involved. This bill would change the functions of the board of railway commissioners. In 1916, 1917 and 1918 a great deal of pressure was brought to bear on parliament to place the jurisdiction over the settlement of land disputes as between the railways and the public in the hands of the board of railway commissioners. At that time the board very strongly took the stand that they were not constituted for that purpose; that their machinery was not suitable for that purpose, and that decisions of that kind should be left to the ordinary courts. The board take exactly the same position in this case; that is, that their machinery is not suitable for deciding cases of this kind. However, I think the fundamental question is whether the citizens of Canada would be better served by the new type of court proposed by the bill or by the present procedure, and I believe that matter should be studied by a standing committee of this house. I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this bill be read a second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. O. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) moved the second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Government Railways Act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this second bill
amends the Government Railways Act, and it is introduced for this reason: The Government Railways Act is still on the statute books, and there is a question as to whether or not it is still applicable to the railways which were formerly government property and which now form part of the Canadian

Criminal Code-Motor Cars
National Railways. That question has not been decided in a definite and categorical manner, and the act contains a provision in regard to damages caused by snow fences. Therefore, in order to be on the safe side, I am also presenting this bill to amend the Government Railways Act.
I am not going to repeat what I said when I explained the bill which has just been given second reading, beyond this: A moment ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) said that the procedure before the board of railway commissioners would be different from the procedure which exists at the present time before the superior courts, for instance. I do not see that there would be any difference. If the bill passed we would proceed before the board of railway commissioners exactly as we now proceed before the superior court. The plaintiff would bring his evidence; he would produce his witnesses and would present his written proof before the board just as he does before the superior court at the present time. The only difference would be this: At the present time if he loses his case before the superior court he may have to pay hundreds of dollars in costs to lawyers on both sides. Under the new system proposed, if the plaintiff lost his case before the board of railway commissioners he would not have to pay a cent in costs.
The minister says, "Well, the members of that board are not familiar with that kind of work. They are not as well able to adjudicate in these small damage actions as the local judge would be." I know that Mr. Garceau, for instance, the vice-chairman of the board, is an experienced lawyer in Quebec, and I am sure that Mr. Garceau, with his knowledge of the civil law of that province and with his long experience, could decide a small damage action just as well as any judge of the superior court or the circuit court. I would not be afraid to go before Mr. Garceau, where I am sure I would obtain a decision just as equitable as I might obtain from the judge of any court. The board goes to Quebec, for instance, many times a year. The litigants of that district would go to the courthouse, where they go now. They cannot go anywhere else. If they have a damage action against the railways they have to go to the court-house now to have it adjudicated upon, so in that respect the procedure would be just the same, but instead of going before Mr. Justice So-and-So of the superior court they would go before the board of railway commissioners, in the same building. They would proceed exactly in the same way. They
would make out their case in the same way, and receive a decision just as good as they could receive from a court. The only difference would be that they would not have to pay hundreds of dollars in costs, if they lost their cases.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the remarks I made on
the previous bill apply to this one, and I would suggest the same disposition of it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the criminal code.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in moving the
second reading of the bill, I wish to call the attention of the house to the great slaughter occurring on our highways. Almost every road is coloured red with the slaughter of men, women and children. This slaughtering is done in a manner that is disgraceful, and presents the most important domestic problem with which we have to deal this year. I may say that it is one of Canada's chief problems, and parliament does nothing about it.
We are satisfied to devote a whole lot of time to flag waving, but the government of the day does not seem prepared to sit down and consider what must be done for these helpless men, women and children whose homes have been ruined and whose lives have been wrecked. All this goes on, and yet this high court of parliament sits here and does nothing to deal with these practical problems, which would be a work for the benefit of the people. They do nothing but appoint commissions, and that kind of thing.
I believe a few facts should be drawn to the attention of the house. The subject of the bill has been discussed in the house for three or four sessions. One of the commandments of God is: Thou shalt do no murder. Many men of real worth, through carelessness and selfishness, are recklessly violating not only the laws of God but those of men. No invention has contributed more to the comforts of our people than has the motor car, but, like every other invention we must consider its use as one thing and its abuse as another.
Criminal Code-Motor Cars
[Stage Direction]
During the past century scientific discoveries in medicine, chemistry and physics have resulted in untold good to humanity, but, as in the abuse of inventions, in war they were a curse to mankind. In like manner, to-day the abuse of the motor car is a curse to mankind. Looking into the question one finds invariably a tremendous annual loss from deaths, accidents, injuries, and so on. One finds untold sorrow and suffering with intense pain and grief, almost exceeding anything the human imagination could conceive. The suffering brought about by these machines is equalled only by that inflicted by plagues, pestilence, famine, battle, murder and sudden death.
It would be misleading and unfair to attempt to attribute all the blame for these horrors on the highways to all people who drive and use motor cars. The fact is that ninety-five per cent of drivers are trying to obey the law. It is the remaining five per cent about whom I am complaining. They cause the trouble. One has only to see the records to understand the facts. As I study the records of cases I am driven to the conclusion that beyond any doubt the small minority are the major cause of the trouble. They appear to have exploited, for their own pleasure and profit, the generous tolerance of others. They use their cars in an irresponsible, careless and unchristian way. The fault is grievous, and they can have no ground for complaint if they are put under restraint through application of the criminal code. Ignorance and thoughtlessness are not palliatives. Obedience is the only reparation they can make, and it is long overdue.
I should like to quote the observations of the late Chief Justice R. M. Meredith, who was on the supreme court bench for about forty years. These are his words:
And as now nearly everyone is a car owner, and car driver, young and old, of all sorts and conditions, it is difficult to get justice in even a civil action. Car-driver jurors have nearly all the speed fever; and self-preservation instincts are so strong that they will not be persuaded to decide against drivers who have been no more unlawful than they themselves often, if not commonly, are.
What then is the remedy? I think it should be; make the laws plain and reasonably severe and enforce them; and cancel licences freely. And at the other end of the matter, give no licence to anyone who is not proved to be mentally and physically, and from experience and a knowledge of the highway laws, thoroughly capable.
As I see it, the situation calls for united effort on the part of church members, community clubs, boards of trade, municipal councils and, in fact, all public bodies. Great sorrows, broken lives and shattered homes

resulting from such holocaust are just as real as the nation's supreme sorrow following the war. How long will this suffering have to continue?
I believe three features dominate the conduct of motor traffic to-day. First, we must consider the indifference shown by the five per cent of drivers of the rights and privileges of the people using the highways. Then, there is the indifference to the convenience of others; there is excessive speed, and congestion. Ever since man has learned to direct a machine more powerful than himself he has asserted his superiority over his neighbour. "Make way or take the consequences" is the cry of the reckless driver. Yet, this indifference is limited to only a small number. Fortunately only a small group out of the large body of drivers is responsible for the damage. The majority of motor car drivers have only a hazy knowledge of the mechanism of their machines. For absolute control, the only condition in which a car is fit to be driven at thirty miles an hour is when there is perfect adjustment and perfect conditioning. Even so the machine is potentially as dangerous as a loaded gun, and must be handled with equal care and vigilance. A moment's inattention may be fraught with dire results. Every motor vehicle is a dangerous implement, even when controlled by the most expert, and requires incessant vigilance in all circumstances, and especially at speeds above thirty miles an hour.
As I said, transportation should be a means to an end, not an end in itself. I say when the matter is brought before the house and the Department of Justice it is not treated as it should be. It is a major problem, and it is almost impossible for administrators and legislators to give too much time to it. Inside of an hour after the adjournment of a debate is moved, more people are killed. If wooden crosses were used to represent the people who in twelve months have been killed or injured by motor cars they would, if placed a foot apart, cover parliament hill and reach to Lansdowne park. The figures show that last year in the city of Toronto sixty-eight people were killed, 3,608 hurt and 170 drivers were gaoled. In 1938, to date, there are six dead, 295 hurt and 36 drivers gaoled.
I have received the totals from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics; I do not know whether or not it is permissible to place two or three small tables on Hansard, but I believe if I may be permitted to do so it will assist hon. members in realizing the gravity of the problem. One table, No. 13, gives the number of deaths resulting from automobile accidents between the years 1927 and 1936.

Criminal Code-Motor Cars
It shows that while in 1927 there were 865, in 1936 there were 1,313. In 1928, there were, 1,082 and in 1929, 1,300. The table shows that the months in which there are most accidents are from May to December, including the holidays around the Christmas season.
The second table, No. 14, deals with the deaths resulting from automobile accidents by provinces. Table No. 15 shows the
average per 10,000 registered motor vehicles. Another table gives the deaths from motor car accidents in cities of over 40,000 population. In this table we have the figures for Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Hamilton, Ottawa, Quebec, Calgary, London, Edmonton, Windsor, Verdun, Halifax, Regina, Saint John and Saskatoon. The tables are as follows:
Table 13.-Deaths in Canada Resulting from Automobile Accidents, by Months
Year	Total	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	Apr.	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.1936 	. .. 1,313	55	38	55	93	89	89	145	185	159	169	133	1031935 	... 1,224	55	59	65	60	87	94	125	129	156	141	147	1061934 	. .. 1.115	34	35	38	49	89	104	147	142	140	133	113	881933 	. .. 955	65	37	46	43	72	83	113	124	109	120	84	591932 	. .. 1.120	79	51	51	53	78	89	127	133	119	137	109	941931	... 1.316	53	52	49	76	111	127	127	179	150	158	135	991930 	. .. 1,290	30	31	38	77	102	127	168	181	163	152	125	961929 	. .. 1,300	41	27	42	66	107	132	192	168	174	157	136	581928 	. .. 1,082	29	25	30	55	74	92	131	145	136	158	106	1011927 	... 865	16	19	34	49	67	98	121	111	138	92	58	62
Table 14.-Deaths Resulting from Automobile Accidents, by Provinces
Year Canada	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que. Ont. Total Number	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.1936*	
1,313	7	58	41	371	563	53	47	72	1011935.	
1,224	2	57	40	314	571	53	40	45	1021934.	
1.115	5	41	52	275	528	41	30	61	821933.	
955	2	47	22	256	416	38	32	64	781932.	
1.120	1	51	49	311	497	42	35	49	851931.	
1,316	5	49	45	355	574	60	50	67	1111930.	
1,290	10	54	72	338	517	60	51	77	1111929.	
1,300	1	61	47	323	556	68	56	71	1171928.	
1,082	2	40	31	279	437	53	74	75	911927. *	
865 2 Preliminary Vital Statistics.	31	25	252	387	32	24	35	77Table	15-Average Per	10,000	Registered Motor	Vehicles	Year	Canada	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.1936*	. 10.59	9.17	12.56	12.27	20.43	9.54	7.07	4.60	7.39	9.521935	. 10.42	2.43	12.97	12.81	18.40	10.12	7.50	4.21	4.79	10.471934	9.82	6.94	9.78	17.87	16.62	9.74	5.82	3.28	6.83	8.911933	. 8.82	2.88	11.62	8.20	16.00	8.00	5.53	3.78	7.43	8.811932	. 10.05	1.43	12.39	17.47	18.77	9.35	5.87	3.83	5.64	9.341931	. 10.96	6.46	11.20	13.38	19.77	10.21	7.94	4.61	7.00	11.331930	. 10.40	13.51	12.54	20.67	18.89	9.16	7.57	3.93	7.50	11.221929	. 10.82	1.63	15.30	14.76	19.05	10.12	8.74	4.30	7.12	11.231928	. 10.05	3.68	11.39	11.00	18.79	8.90	7.45	6.08	8.40	10.251927	. 9.15	4.56	10.31	10.19	19.62	8.87	5.01	2.25	4.74	9.92
* Preliminary Vital Statistics.
Table 16.-Deaths m Canada Resulting from Automobile Accidents Reported by Cities of
over 40,000 Population
Cities	fl936	1935	1934	1933	1932	1931	1930	1929	1928	1927Montreal	
110	109	101	104	121	143	136	151	109	126Toronto 	
80	74	88	65	88	111	67	107	81	87Winnipeg 	
19	24	19	18	22	25	30	25	24	18Vancouver 	
36	43	25	28	41	46	43	45	42	35Hamilton	
23	16	27	22	20	31	41	37	29	23Ottawa	
21	25	19	25	25	19	24	26	17	17Quebec 	
18	17	14	8	14	15	17	17	10	14Calgary 	
12	10	11	7	9	12	12	11	13	8London	
21	13	13	20	12	21	18	16	13	9Edmonton	
11	7	9	10	8	16	15	10	8	7Windsor 	
22	25	14	16	13	17	15	17	22	24Verdun	
6	6	4	1	5	1	1	2	2Halifax 	
14	13	10	14	8	9	6	14	10	5Regina	
3	5	5	1	1	11	8	(*)	(*)	(*)Saint John	
5	5	7	1	6	6	12	5	2	4Saskatoon	
4	1	2	3	4	3	4	(*)	o	(*)
t Preliminary Vital Statistics. * Not tabulated.
53S
Criminal Code-Motor Cars
[Stage Direction]
In France, with a population of 42,000,000, 4,415 people were killed in motor accidents in 1936; in Germany, where they are spending vast sums on road building, with a population of 67,000,000, the number of people killed last year was S,381; in the United States, with a population of 128,000,000, in motor accidents in 1935, 37,000 people were killed, or half the number of their soldiers who were killed in the great war; in England an average of twenty people are killed each day, or about 6,000 in a year. The figures for England last year were 6,000 killed and 200,000 injured in motor accidents. I am taking these figures from the House of Lords report.
In England, in the ten years up to December of last year, 66,000 were killed and 2,000,000 injured in motor accidents. Fancy, in the mother country alone, 66,000 people being killed and 2,000,000 injured on the highways! An average of two children are killed per day in England. In one year in England 50,000 school children were killed or injured. These accidents are estimated to cost the nation £200,000,000 a year. This estimate is from a new textbook on public highways, published in London, which I am sorry is not available in the library here. It is frequently referred to by the Minister of Transport in England, and I hope the Parliamentary Library will get a copy. That is to say, in a year there are more people killed than there were soldiers killed in the whole Boer war. The hospitals in England are all facing deficits from road accidents. The cost of English hospitals is estimated at three hundred thousand pounds a year.
I ask the government very seriously to consider this question and to let parliament know what they intend to do about it. The traffic on the English roads is very great, greater than elsewhere. In the United States, for example, there are eight cars to every mile; in France, four cars to every mile; Germany, fifteen; England, ten; and in Canada, fifteen. In Canada to-day deaths as a result of motor accidents are a great national scandal.
The key to the situation, in my opinion, is the human factor. The wider the roads, the more numerous the accidents. An examination of one hundred thousand cases of road accidents in the mother country over a period of two and a half years has been kindly sent to me, with a very fine letter of information, by the present Secretary of War, the Right Hon. Hore-Belisha, who so ably presided over the transport department in England for three or four years. I have not

time to read it, and I wish I could be allowed to put it on Hansard. I can give a few figures to show what that great Minister of Transport did in the old land, where they have some of the best roads in the world. When they reduced the speed limit to thirty miles an hour the accidents dropped by fifty per cent, and if they could get the speed down to twenty miles per hour the number of accidents would decrease at a further rate. I should like the minister to see a copy of this report which Mr. Hore-Belisha has sent to me; it is a very valuable and interesting document. Mr. Hore-Belisha finds that the relative severity of accidents in areas not built up, and1 where speeds would normally be higher, is greater; that the proportion of accidents which occur at junctions, especially in built-up areas, is very high; that over one-third of the persons injured were pedal cyclists; over twenty-nine per cent, pedestrians, and over eighteen per cent, motor cyclists or their passengers.
He goes on to refer to the comparative severity of casualties to motor cyclists, over one-third being either killed or seriously injured, and the report gives tables in which the accidents are classified.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the key to the whole problem is the human factor, and a study of these cases shows that the wider the roads, and the more you spend on them the more accidents there will be. These accidents, it is shown, occur in clear, not foggy, weather, and it is on week-ends and at Christmas and other holidays that most of the accidents occur. In Canada the bulk of accidents occur after April and continue to the end of the year, especially the summer weekends and Christmas.
I doubt if our roads policy in this country is a wise one. We have our good roads associations and they are urging legislatures to build more roads; our uneconomic roads creating railway deficits are a nuisance, and I think we have the most uneconomic road system in the world. They compete against our railways, on which we have spent four billion dollars. We allow motor trucks and buses on roads to be used on roads built fifty years ago for horse-drawn traffic, and we let modern motor cars drive over these same roads at a very fast pace of from fifty to sixty miles an hour. It was the railways that ruined the canals a hundred years ago, and today it is the motor buses and motor cars that are ruining the railways. The mortality in these road accidents is appalling. Canada's rate is high; England's rate is not as high

Criminal Code-Motor Cars
as that of the United States or Germany, but it is higher than that of France and Canada for our population. It is a living scandal of first importance; it is disgraceful.
Another menace on our congested highways is the glaring headlights, which in conjunction with beer parlours and the truck traffic, make it impossible to drive in safety in Ontario at night, and conditions are getting worse. Lord Justice Maughan, that great jurist who so ably sat in the privy council said in the House of Lords last fall that all "his experience on the bench went to show that a stiffening of the law would tend most substantially to reduce the number of accidents on the roads." The new wider roads in Germany have not reduced accidents, and in England the experience is that there is an increased mortality in road accidents resulting from the straightening and widening of roads permitting of higher speeds. We as a House of Commons know we can reduce these accidents and we meet and do nothing about it, nor do the press or church.
Compare the accidents in the air or on the railways with motor car accidents and you will find that they are almost negligible in comparison with the holocaust on the highways of this country. At level crossings we have our bells and wig-wags, but according to a return brought down in this house last year there were 175 accidents at level crossings, in which 84 people were killed and 208 injured. The problem is so pressing that there should be no more delay. The government's policy is not simply laissez-faire; it is laissezmaourir- let the people die as they like-let them die for all the government cares. I say, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to allow such conditions to continue longer in this country. The present slaughter cannot be allowed to continue. Accidents largely arise through a lack of courtesy or because of impatience, hurry, bad manners or because one driver forgets his duty to his God and neighbour and refuses to give way to another.
What is the church of God doing while all this is going on? When we had an epidemic of infantile paralysis all over this country, caused by ragweed and other conditions, the deaths from which were trivial in number compared with the number killed in motor car accidents, the whole press of this country was aroused. We all remember that terrible college disaster at St. Hyacinthe, which is a reflection on our building laws and fire prevention regulations. There was mourning all over Canada for the people of our fine province of Quebec and sympathy with the grief of the parents of the young children who perished in
that terrible disaster, and with the heads of that fine seminary of learning and education. If any disease were to take the toll of the motor car, medicine and science would know no rest until some cure for the disease had been found. Look at the figjit that science and preventive medicine are making against cancer, tuberculosis, diabetes and other ills. But hundreds of thousands, Mr. Speaker, are being slaughtered or severely injured in motor car accidents in this country; yet the press and the church say little or nothing about it and give little attention to it. We need to deal with this problem along bolder lines.
I want constructive action from the government. True, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is overworked and has already a heavy department and I doubt if we should put this work on him. I was not in the house the other day when a just tribute was being paid to him, but I have known him for a great many years and I am sure he sympathizes very deeply with the object I have in view in this bill and would do all he could to prevent the slaughter, if he could go further, as he always strives to do good. We want definite and immediate action. Constitution or no constitution, something must be done without further delay to prevent this slaughter. Our road system fails to provide the safety it should for pedestrians and cyclists and farmers. In the South African war, lasting two and three-quarter years, there were 7,492 people killed. During a period of the same length in England 16,000 people were killed in motor car accidents. People nowadays in their mad rush and hurry hold life less sacred than they used to, but the grief of parents mourning for their children, the grief of husbands and wives, is just as deep as that of those who lost members of their families in the South African war.
What is the government going to do about it n'ow? These casualties are the more deplorable in that too often they mean that wives and young children are left without the breadwinner. During the South African war it was usual for Queen Victoria to receive news of its progress and of the casualties. One day the war minister walked in and told her that twenty-three of her soldiers had been killed the previous day. The poor old queen wept, and said, "Let a telegram be sent to the relatives of every one of these men." If the king in these days were to send a telegram to the relatives of the 6,000 people who were killed and the 200,000 who were injured as a result of motor accidents in England last year, he would have no time to do anything else.
Criminal Code-Motor Cars
[Stage Direction]
It shows that to-day we hold life less sacred than we used to do. In my opinion the church of God should be up and doing. It is not doing all it should do; it should take some constructive action. Are our Canadian people entirely lacking in any sense of balance while all this goes on?
I have already referred to the dangers of delay. The pedestrian, in crossing the street, is somewhat to blame. There has been some reduction in the number of child casualties because the cities have guides to conduct children across the streets.
In my opinion this is a great national evil, and it is a shocking and scandalous state of affairs that it is going on all over the country without anything being done by anybody. What do the legislatures of this country do? Nothing. What does this high court of parliament at Ottawa do? One of its branches, the senate, goes off on a three weeks' holiday, saying, "We have no work." There is work to do right here. Look at what the House of Lords did in regard to this question. Would our senate do it? No chance! I have before me the report of a debate in the House of Lords, in which right honourable and right reverend prelates of the church of England who took part emphasized the importance of dealing with an evil which is crippling the mother country by depriving her of the flower of the nation, the youth of the day. I ask the church of Canada to be up and doing, to bring this problem to the attention of the people and of parliament. It is not a political question-far from it. I put it before the minister at this time and hope to be able to offer some constructive suggestions. The Right Honourable and Right Reverend Bishop of Winchester in the House of Lords made some splendid practical suggestions. This right reverend prelate called the country to arms to stop it all.
Coming to the bill itself, on the second reading we can discuss only the principle of the measure not the clauses. As regards the clause referring to drunken drivers, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) made in the last debate a very wise remark about beer parlours, which was taken up by a section of the press, about drunken drivers, and the experience of other countries confirms what the hon. member said. My right hon. leader also alluded to this matter in a very able address he made last session. I have drafted a new clause this year to take care of this point, because, according to some judges, you cannot convict or it is hard to convict under the present section of the

criminal code which is full of loopholes. I have therefore stricken out the old clause and substituted:
(4) Every one who, while under the influence of alcohol or of any narcotic, to such a degree as to make him incapable of exercising a safe and proper control of any motor vehicle or automobile, drives or attempts to drive such motor vehicle or automobile, is guilty of an offence-
And why should he not be? Why are these people allowed to go out in such a condition on highways built for traffic as it was fifty years ago, roads constructed in the ox-cart days, as were our rural and some suburban and urban roads-for I do not refer altogether to the improved roads. Why are they allowed to go out on roads suitable only for horses and horse-drawn vehicles and rush recklessly along at fifty to sixty miles an hour, to send people into the cemetery in the twinkling of an eye? I say it is all wrong. It is race suicide.
We then come to another section, "Racing and cutting in." The investigation made by the Minister of Transport in England shows what terrible tragedies result from this practice. The right honourable prelate in the House of Lords, the Bishop of Winchester, called this pest "cads."
On page 2 also is a subsection, "Causing death in a culpably negligent manner." It takes two people to make an accident, and the question of fact is for the jury. In many cases the decision has been taken from the jury.
"Person having caused death not to drive for two years." Why should a man who has killed another person be allowed to drive within two years? In my opinion he should not drive any more. I know that if I killed a person I would not want to drive again.
It is also provided that persons shall not drive if under eighteen years of age. Objection may be taken to that clause. May I inform the house that, in the debate in the House of Lords, speaker after speaker rose and said that nobody can drive a locomotive on a private right of way unless he is a skilled man, and yet immature boys and girls of fourteen and sixteen are permitted to drive cars. I was on the street the day before Christmas. A Toronto Transportation Company street car was diverted down Bay street along Wellington between Bay and Yonge to get around the loop more quickly. There were trucks about, and one truck blocked the street car. The motorman and the conductor got out to move the truck. There were about twenty-five passengers in the

Criminal Code-Motor Cars
street car. But neither conductor nor motor-man could move the truck. A boy of twelve moved the truck. He was asked how old he was and he said he was twelve years of age. He could drive when he is twelve; boys who say they are fourteen think they should be entitled to drive when they are only eleven. Remember the accident at Vineland last September, where a school boy who was driving four or five of his companions, girls and boys, towards a railway crossing did not hear the bell or see the train, and all of them were blotted out. I agree with the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson) that the age limit should be raised. The motor car is the most dangerous mechanism that we have. Why should somebody of immature age and judgment be allowed to drive? The Reverend Mr. Austin Ireland, M.A., anglican rector of Thorold, who conducted the burial service on these Vineland people, cried out from the pulpit to parliament to put a stop to such conditions, and driving by children of immature age although some are good drivers. No doubt many of our best drivers are quite young, but owing to the abuse of the permission to people to drive when under age, something should be done about it.
As to confiscating cars, if one looks over the criminal code he can find many confiscatory clauses. They confiscate pistols; they confiscate all kinds of things of personal property under the code; why should not parliament extend the power to cover such criminal offences by drivers of cars?
To cover all the matters referred to would take too long, for there are other bills to be considered.
Regarding driving when a licence has been suspended, that has been done in many cases, and it is only common sense that under the code this should be made an offence and a penalty exacted. Also we have those hit and run drivers, the cowardly people who leave their victims lying on the pavement. I could show hon. members some photographs of these victims-.men and women and little children, even babies, knocked down on the road, and the drivers have escaped. The section should be stiffened up all along the line.
I have mentioned that the court may impound the motor car. Why should not a person who drives recklessly or negligibly a highly dangerous machine not have the control of it taken away from him? Why should not the licence of such a person be revoked? No wonder people are being killed; our criminal code is twenty years behind the times in the way it deals with this problem. It is the function of juries to take the law
to be what the judge says it is, but to decide questions of fact, but in a large number of cases the judge takes the case away from the jury and allows the defendant to go free.
This bill is not perfect by any means. I do not profess that it is. I cannot be expected, as a private member without adequate help, to do all -that is required. I have brought the problem forward a number of times and laid it before this parliament. I have done my duty as I see it. I have no apologies to make. What are hon. members going to do about it? Are they going to allow the respected Minister of Justice just to rise after I sit down and move the adjournment of the debate, or are they going to continue this discussion and demand immediate action? A great prelate said in the House of Lords that this was the most important domestic problem England had. The Bishop of Winchester, who made that remark, also told the House of Lords that if they did nothing else but continue to sit every day for a month until they solved the problem, their time would be well spent, and this was the solemn duty of administrators and legislators. The representative of the Minister of Transport in the House of Lords was asked what he intended to do about it. He was not allowed to escape by moving the adjournment of the debate, but had to appoint a select committee. He offered to appoint a commission, but the House of Lords, being practical men, would not accept that suggestion. The matter had been made a football of long enough. They wanted a committee. After what I have seen of committees, however, I have not, for some of these select committees, the respect I used to have.
I submit that the road contractors and cement people have too much influence in these good conventions at the present time. They go up and down the country, they go to the conventions, and they have such influence both in and outside the conventions that they will do anything to persuade the legislature to spend more money on existing uneconomic roads. Let the government announce some practical action here and now.
I have given only a small portion of the facts I have, and if the minister has no objection I should like to put on the record the two pages of tables from which I quoted. In fact, I read most of it. It was obtained from the bureau of statistics and it would give hon. members a good idea of the situation.
That is all I have to say in moving the second reading of this bill. I make the motion m the hope that something will be done, and I trust that other members will speak. They have an opportunity to-day to
Criminal Code-Motor Cars
[Stage Direction]
take part in the debate now or never. They know the findings of their magistrates and county court judges and juries all over Canada. Let us support the law officers of the crown; let us support law and order in the country. We must have order on the highways so that Canada will be leading the van instead of lagging behind the motherland and Germany, France and the United States in coping with this awful death problem.
This is not a party matter. No one knows who will be the next victim. I may be the next one, some hon. gentleman sitting in this chamber to-day may be a victim, and I would be sorry if any of them were not here next year. I ask them, therefore, to rise in their places and express the views of their respective constituencies. Let them tell us what they think of the law and what, in their opinion, should be done to deal with this terrible menace that is ruining the lives of men, women and children and shattering the homes of the country.
Mr. F. C. BETTS (London):: In rising
to second the motion I should like to commend the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) for his persistence in pressing this matter and for the eminently thorough and practical manner in which he has presented his arguments in support of the bill. I can add very little of use to what he has said, but there is something that I should like to say.
In my opinion, the provisions for cancellation or suspension of licences are particularly useful. We have tried to deal with the senseless slaughter on the highways to which the hon. gentleman has had reference, and to meet the situation by means of short terms of imprisonment and fines, but our efforts have been entirely fruitless. As my colleague has pointed out, the motor car has become such an integral part of present day life that if we deprive motor owners of the right to use their vehicles as a punishment for offences committed while they are in control of their cars, we are proceeding in a manner which will impress these people, and the only manner which will impress them.
In my view the right to use these extremely dangerous machines is conferred after a very superficial test. Much could be done by more severe regulations along these lines. Practically every accident on the highway is preventable. As a practising lawyer who has had many cases to review, I can say that a careful analysis of almost any accident will

show that it was caused in the first instance by excessive speed and in every instance by failure to take adequate care.
It is a great pleasure to me, therefore, besides being a duty, to speak in support of this bill. I would qualify my remarks on the second reading by saying this: I doubt whether we shall be any further ahead by substituting the words "under the influence of alcohol'' for the word "intoxicated." That is a matter of terminology, and no matter how the condition is described in legislation it is a question which will always present grave difficulty to any tribunal that has to pass upou it. In the main, however, the bill is an excellent one, is much needed legislation, and I hope it will receive the support of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have given a vefy great deal	of	consideration and	thought	to	thenumber of accidents that are occurring on our highways, with loss of life, through motor cars.	I	fancy that every	member	of	the
house has done so, and I doubt if there is any of us who has not had occasion to regret the loss of a friend suddenly through some accident of the sort. I recall so many instances; I recall one in which, only a few hours before, I was talking to a young woman, who was going away happily, and then I took up the newspaper and found that she had been killed at a street corner in an accident which, of course, might have been prevented.
The question before us is a very simple one: Shall we make a criminal offence, punishable in the manner indicated in this bill, of violation of a statute which we are about to create with respect to accidents of this kind? Frankly, I think we should. I think the time has come when we can no longer permit laxity of control to prevail in Canada.
Dealing with a matter of principle, here we have to consider the question of restraining young people from driving cars. Now, I have had occasion, as I doubt not every member of this chamber has had, to regret seeing young persons driving motor cars. A motor car weighs very frequently two tons; it seldom weighs less than a ton or a ton and a half. Practically any one of them, however small it may be, will weigh over a ton-I refer to those used in this country. It is true that motor cars weigh less than that in the old country, the small Morris car for instance. To entrust a child of eleven, twelve, thirteen, or fifteen or sixteen years of age, boy or girl, with a machine of that kind upon the highway, is in itself a lack of prudent caution on the part of those who have control of these children. See what it

Criminal Code-Motor Cars
means. The momentum with which that body will strike any given person or machine is obtained by multiplying the rate of speed by the weight. If it is going at only ten miles an hour, one gets some understanding of the tremendous momentum with which it strikes any person who may be in the way of its movement forward. Can we afford as custodians-we are custodians in a large sense of the safety of the public of this country, in that sense at any rate-can we afford to permit this thing to continue, to have these people driving cars?
The second principle is the suspension of the licence. We have not been doing that in this country to the extent which we should. You may say that the provinces can deal with this, but the provinces cannot adequately deal with the question of the criminal character of the offence, and it should not be a law that applies only to one province, it should be universal and passed by this dominion. In England, where of course they have cne law, there is a certain well known peer who drives a car very rapidly. He has had his licence suspended for a year's time. The other day they suspended for life the licence of one who under the influence of intoxicants was driving his car at a high rate of speed, resulting in injury but not death. There is only one way in which you can make control effective in this country, and that is by an amendment to the criminal code; because it is useless to talk about making it effective in Ontario and not in Nova Scotia. We must have a law applicable to the whole dominion. I know of no better field in which you can utilize the criminal law than in that very field. After all should it not be a crime thus to endanger human life? We have our criminal code filled with sections dealing sometimes with mischief, sometimes with conspiracy, sometimes with various small matters, but we have never been hesitant in declaring that any offence against the safety of human life should be regarded as a crime. Is it not the duty of this parliament now to take adequate steps to safeguard those who are travelling on the streets of our country on foot? The House of Lords held-and I commend to my friends in this chamber the reading of Lord Buckmaster's judgment-that it is the pedestrian who has the right of way, not the machine. I can never forget seeing, when passing through the village of Ipswich after that decision, a mother with her child saunter across the street just as leisurely as was possible, while the motor cars had to slow down and wait while she went over. Pedestrians have the right of way. Tell me, Mr. Speaker, to what extent have pedestrians the right of way in Canada? Ask yourselves
that question. All of us know what it is to dodge out of the way of motor cars in this country. They drive by with as much nonchalance and complacency as though they owned the road and we were trespassers. Has not the time come to assert ourselves and say that people who thus endanger human life have committed a crime-because in my judgment it is endangering human life and should be made a crime.
I think this statute is not sufficiently stringent with respect to the suspension of licences. I should like to have it provided in the sections which follow that after the first offence the licence be suspended for a period of years, and I should like to go as far as having it suspended for life. That is the only way that my safety can be secured. Let us be personal and selfish about it; what right has the Minister of Justice to have his life endangered, when he crosses the street to-night, by someone who says, To the blank with him; we are going to drive our car as we see fit. It is a dark night, he is struck; the driver leaves him dying and rushes on. That happens in this country; you only have to read the daily press to see it.
The figures given by the hon. member for Broadview as to the number of deaths resulting in Great Britain, Germany, the United States, Canada, are simply appalling. Think of 37.000 people being killed in the United States in 1935. There are communities in the United States that you and I have been in where we have to dodge to get across the street without being hit by a motor car. We know of one city in particular in Europe where the pedestrian has to risk his life any time he tries to cross the street. Is it not time we should intervene, and should we not intervene in the public interest.
As to the question of those driving cars under the influence of liquor, I think nothing except the most powerful punishment will have any effect. WThen two or three men are tied up in penitentiary for a year or two for driving motor cars while under the influence of liquor it will have the effect of stopping them. I wonder how many hon. members have seriously analysed the number of accident cases that are referable to drink. I confess I have. I have been appalled to find that nearly all the fatal accident cases may be attributed to drink. I am sorry to say that, but it is true. Carry your minds back to these things. I am not referring to that terrible accident where those driving the car were under age; I am referring to the class of cases that make the second branch of what I have to say, namely the class in which accidents occur by reason of the drivers being under the influence
Criminal Code-Motor Cars

of alcohol. The question of defining when a man is intoxicated has always been a matter of great difficulty. For instance, habitual drunkenness is defined and interpreted in a recent English Statute. The question of intoxication has usually been regarded as a matter of proof, and it is for the jury or the judge, as the case may be, to draw the inference from the evidence as to whether or not the person was under the influence of intoxicants so as to be deprived of the power of control which is essential in the driving of a machine such as a motor car.
Laws, Mr. Speaker, are of two kinds; at least there are two phases in which we can consider them. One is the punitive effect, that is, the punishment of the offender; the other is the deterrent effect. If we enact a provision of this kind I submit we shall produce a salutary effect upon drivers of motor cars; it will operate as a deterrent against men going out to drive cars while under the influence of liquor. I believe that. It has been my experience with respect to law and its administration. I am confident that the deterrent effect of a statute of this kind is not easy to over-estimate. AVhy? Because it has behind it a sound body of public opinion. One of the main reasons why sometimes some laws are better enforced than others is that you have behind them an enlightened and powerful public opinion. I am satisfied that the public opinion of this country demands that we should make it punishable, severely punishable, if you will, to drive a motor car under the influence of liquor.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That being so, let us gtapple with this matter and not offer any apologies with respect to it. It is all right to say that the provinces have laws; so they have. But the criminal code is another thing altogether. It applies from coast to coast; it puts all provinces on an equality; it makes possible the punishment of the man in one part of the country equally with the man who lives in another part. In my judgment it leaves the whole situation in a proper perspective with respect to the risks involved and the danger incurred when you have a motor car under the control of one who has been using intoxicants improperly.
The question whether or not a jury may return a verdict on a manslaughter charge for culpable negligence has long engaged the attention of those who are familiar with the development of criminal law. Manslaughter is of course based upon the assumption that there has been culpable negligence, but juries are human and prone (to say: We will not

convict our friend of manslaughter; it is a terrible thing to contemplate, but when the alternative is put to them in the form indicated by this bill, a conviction for culpable negligence, you have a situation of an entirely different character. I do believe that the count for culpable negligence in an indictment would do much to make punishment of the offenders secure and possible where now they escape. All of us unfortunately know, Mr. Speaker-and perhaps it is to the credit of human nature-how difficult it is for a jury of men to sit down and say that their neighbour is to be found guilty of manslaughter. They find it difficult to believe that he was so oblivious to what was going on and so absolutely unconcerned that he did not take proper care, and that manslaughter was the result. But you ask them whether or not they are ready to convict for culpable negligence and that sounds different. That does not sound so bad. After all he may have been just a bit negligent in his job. He may have become careless; he may have been lighting his cigarette or his cigar; he may have failed to take those steps which a man should take to ensure the safety of the passer-by on the street or the highway. If he has done so it seems to me that the question of making it possible to find a verdict of culpable negligence, when the charge of manslaughter is too offensive in the mind of the jury, should be a matter with which we should deal.
There remain only two other matters in the bill that need be mentioned at all. One has to do with the functions of judge and jury. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that it was the act of a great jurist in Great Britain that decided that it was for the jury to come to a conclusion on the question of libel or no libel. Now the question of fact for the jury to determine is as indicated in this section which is part of the bill. It should always, it seems to me, be a matter of fact to be determined by the judge if sitting as judge and jury, and by the jury where there is a jury.
I should like to add just one word more, with regard to the question of impounding motor vehicles. I have not been practising my profession, except to read the cases, for over ten years. One of the last cases in which I was engaged concerned a motor car, a new Cadillac, which came from the province of British Columbia into the province _ of Alberta laden with liquor, in contravention of the provisions of the Alberta act. The government of the province seized the car

Criminal Code-Motor Cars
and the liquor. The magistrate convicted the accused of an offence under the statute and confiscated the car.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Was it under the criminal code?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, under the liquor act. I think one prosecution was under the criminal code and the other under the liquor act, but of course it was under the liquor act that they confiscated the car as well as the cargo of liquor. I was entrusted by the government of Alberta to deal with the matter and ultimately the case went to the privy council, where it was decided that it was properly confiscated.
If we confiscate a car in the province of Alberta because it contains liquor coming from British Columbia to Alberta, what would you think about simply confiscating a car that kills a man? What would you think about making automobile drivers understand that this sort of thing is not going to be tolerated any longer in Canada? What would you think about making it clear to the man who has eight or ten thousand dollars invested in a car, "You are running the risk of losing that eight or ten thousand dollars by your carelessness, by your negligence, by your disregard of the rules that ordinarily should govern the conduct of men." Sometimes-I am sorry to say this, Mr. Speaker-the measure of carelessness is the measure of newly acquired wealth that enables a car to be purchased costing a large sum of money. That is a very terrible thing to say, but some of us have seen newly acquired wealth express itself in very expensive cars, and drive by with such an entire and utter disregard of the convenience of others; whether it splash them with dirty water from the street or hurl them into the ditch is a matter of profound indifference.
Should we not take steps to stop it? We have the power. We should not leave it to the provinces to deal with it, so that one does and the other does not; we should make it of universal concern in Canada to see that this thing is stopped and that the man whose car brings about this result is punished. It has been part of the law in England from the very start of things, and it is the law upon which was based that old theory of the deodand, that anything that brought about the death of a subject could be destroyed or forfeited; confiscated, as we say sometimes. Forfeited to the crown is the other expression. It was amazing what excellent cars the -11952-35
province of Alberta did get by reason of its confiscation of those automobiles, for the purpose of carrying on its ordinary business, without having to buy them. It was an amazing thing. If, for instance, the mounted police and others of our organizations that require motor cars had them provided at the expense of some of these negligent persons I think it would be a very salutary lesson on the one hand and a very easy way to get motor cars on the other. It might be worthy of consideration; I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) would be interested.
I do not desire, sir, to take up the time of this house with any further observations. I suggested to the minister that I might speak before he did; not that I think I can in any sense influence his judgment. Far be it from me to assume any such thing as that, but I know how judicial will be his approach to this difficult problem, and the observations I make are expressed in the hope that as he does approach it he will realize that any action he takes to bring about the results which are indicated by this bill will, I believe, meet with the warm approval not only of the members of this chamber but of that great public outside the chamber who are running the risk every day of having their lives taken from them by the carelessness, the indifference and sometimes the drunkenness of those who have these machines under their control.
Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood); Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to speak on this bill but, having listened to the three excellent speeches which have preceded mine, I am convinced that there is a point which is of the greatest importance and upon which as yet no comment has been made. Accordingly I am taking the liberty of speaking before the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in order to direct his attention to it, so that he may incorporate it in his reply, a matter which seems to me to be fundamental in connection with the principle of this bill.
I listened with a great deal of interest, as I always do, to my colleague and neighbour the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), and I congratulate him, as I do the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts) and my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett), who followed, on their approach to this matter, endorsing most heartily what they had to say. On the other hand it seems to me that the bill under consideration at the moment fails to go far enough and stops really far short of the point which I think should be reached. The bill deals with effect rather than with cause.

Criminal Code-Motor Cars

By that I mean, who are driving cars? Who get licences to drive cars? How do we know that those who are driving cars are qualified to do so? The hon. member for Broadview referred to the record that had been achieved in Great Britain, the lowering of the number of accidents occurring each day or each year, if you like.
Those of us who have visited the United Kingdom recently have seen attached to licence plates a white plate bearing the red letter "L", indicating that the one in charge of the car is a "learner" or a probationer as an automobile driver. He has applied for his licence and has come up to certain qualified standards, and from then on for, I believe, at least the period of a month, and in some cases as long as three months, he must carry the learner's plate on the rear of his car. This indicates to all and sundry that he is not as yet a qualified driver, and to look out for him. He is not permitted to drive alone at any time during the learner probationary period. He must have accompanying him one who is the holder of a full licence.
I think all who have had experience in driving cars in Canada realize that both on our highways and in our cities there are drivers who are by no means intoxicated, but who act as if they were. I have seen signs on the back of cars which read, "Look out; I may do something foolish." That seems to be one of the best signs which could be attached to some cars I have seen. All hon. members must realize that, as the hon. member for Broadview said, in the vast majority of cases it takes two to make an accident. We have all had the experience where the driver in front of us or the driver coming in from our right or left, or the driver coming towards us, has done something extraordinarily foolish, which has manifested to us the fact that he did not understand the control of a motor car.
There are people driving motor cars to-day -we all know them-whose vision is impaired. There are those who are colour blind, who cannot tell a red light from a green one. There are others who are entirely unfamiliar with the mechanical operation of any machine, let alone an automobile. They know that if they press forward their left foot, shift the lever, and press the right foot as they let go with their left-so far as one can let go of one's foot-the chances are the car will start. After that, heaven alone knows what will happen. Yet, for one reason or another they have been able to convince someone that they are qualified drivers of

motor cars and are then permitted to take charge of their cars, and proceed through our cities and on our highways.
I know that at the moment the granting of driving permits is in the jurisdiction of the provinces, and for a permit to drive a car, one applies to an official in his own province. Notwithstanding anything that has been said so far in regard to drunken drivers, and all that it implies, or in regard to reckless drivers, and all that that implies, it seems to me the fundamental cause of accidents throughout the country is the fact that so many who are driving cars are not qualified drivers in fact, but only in name.
It seems to me that as we have here a national menace, the granting of licences should be a federal function, and could come under the control of federal regulation and law, rather than have the granting of licences left to the individual provinces. Perhaps control might be under the criminal code, or whatever statute would be suitable.
Let me illustrate. Let it be assumed that the laws of British Columbia are extremely strict in the matter of examination for a driving permit, whereas the laws of, say the neighbouring province of Alberta may be less strict. I do not know what the conditions are in those provinces, and I use them simply in a hypothetical case. Yet the man who receives a licence in the province where the requirements are not rigid can go to the province where the requirements are rigid and drive with just as much freedom as he would have in his own province.
Therefore we have here a national question. Implied in the bill is the desire to curtail accidents, and to reduce them to a minimum. When I say that the bill has touched upon the effect rather than the cause I mean that we have left out the most important single facts in the whole question. Therefore I would heartily recommend to the minister that in addition to what is covered by this bill he might give consideration to what I have just suggested, and turn his mind to the question whether or not it is possible, or if you like, within the jurisdiction of the criminal code, to make it criminal to drive a car without adequate knowledge of it, and without being fully capable of so doing.
One more word and I shall have finished. Those of us who have been in the United Kingdom recently have realized that they have gone a long way in traffic regulation through what is called "controlled" and "decontrolled" areas. In certain areas, or rather along certain stretches of highway, one sees the now familiar signs and realizes that he

Criminal Code-Motor Cars
is not under any circumstances permitted to drive over thirty miles an hour. Then along other stretches he sees other now familiar signs, bearing different markings, and he knows there he can drive at any speed, provided he does not drive recklessly. The combination of "decontrolled" and "controlled" areas, along with the new requirements for the gaining of a licence in great part have brought about the substantial lowering of the number of accidents noted in the United Kingdom.
Then, further, our highway laws vary from province to province. To drive in one province under one set of laws, and bo drive in another under another set, is confusing to the traveller. Who knows, as he travels from province to province, or even from town to town, whether he can turn to the right on a red light or whether he cannot. He does not know whether he may drive at only thirty miles an hour on a highway or whether he may travel at fifty. It is all very well bo say that no one should proceed from one province to another without fully acquainting himself with the various laws in the various provinces. But, after all, we are approaching the stage when a trans-Canada highway will be an actuality rather than a politician's dream, and probably we can think about driving from one end of the dominion to the other, through the nine provinces.
Surely when we consider the awful toll that is being taken upon human life, not only in cities but on our highways, a toll not only due to intoxicated drivers or reckless drivers, but partly as a result of drivers without adequate skill to drive a car at all, a lack of knowledge of the machine itself and a lack of knowledge of the traffic laws in the provinces, it must be realized-and I am quite sure my right hon. friend will agree with me-that there should be some dominion-wide, common code which could be recognized as the highway code of this whole dominion. Perhaps that is not easily accomplished. I can readily understand that the right hon. gentleman will see many hazards in the way of each of those matters, but I think that when we consider the bill we should also consider the matters I have mentioned, in addition t,o that which already has been so ably said by hon. gentlemen who have spoken before me.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything on this matter, but the older I get the more determined I am to give credit where credit is due. I am convinced that at least in Ontario we are tightening up in the enforcement of traffic laws. I should like to give one concrete example. In the forenoon of one of 51952-35J
the holidays a citizen in my district drank a bottle of beer. He and the group with which he was associated were having a picnic in the afternoon and he was driving his car. He was summoned to court because he had taken the beer in the forenoon, and had to spend two weeks in gaol. I have noticed considerable tightening up in Ontario, and while I may not agree with everything done by the premier of that province, I must say that when he takes a thing in hand he gets somewhere with it.
I should like to find out the cause of our accidents.


Mr. SPENCE:: Most of it is through lack of courtesy.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I know that some men are allowed to drive cars who are thinking of two or three things at the same time. I know, too, that some of our youth even at sixteen years of age can drive cars better than I can. I should like to know how many accidents are due to intoxicated drivers. If cur government will allow at one place the thing that causes accidents and then condemn it at another place, I think it is time we were sure of the cause of our accidents. I am not so sure that extreme punishment will prevent them. I backed into a street car once, but I never did it again. I think intelligent men and women will profit by the mistakes they make. The accidents to-day are appalling, and I will support any law or anything that will help to save the lives of our citizens, and especially of our women and children who cannot afford a car.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words on this bill, from another angle. Many members have spoken from different angles, but I do not think anyone has so far touched on the cost to the public as a result of these accidents. The large increase which has taken place in the number of injuries and accidental deaths over the past ten or fifteen years has had a very considerable effect in raising insurance rates in respect to the automobile. One must realize that insurance is a cooperative proposition; therefore it affects every individual, and if we are to continue to have more deaths and injuries from automobile accidents we are going to have increasingly higher rates of insurance.
Some twenty years or so ago, in the list of the causes of death under life insurance policies over a period, it used to be that diseases of the heart and arteries stood first in the causes of death; next came cancer, and down in the ninth or tenth place, accidents. But gradually over a period of years, due to higher
Criminal Code-Motor Cars

speed and so on, and the increasing number of accidents which took place, we find that while diseases of the heart and arteries still stand in the first place, with cancer next, the third most prevalent cause of death to-day is accidents, and the increase in the number of deaths from accidents is practically all accounted for by the automobile. Despite the fact that preventive medicine has had such a tremendous effect in increasing the average span of life, automobile accidents are counteracting that benefit to a great extent, and life insurance is not getting the benefit of a decrease in the number of deaths generally. If we do not do something about these accidents, life insurance premiums may have to go up. Certainly they will not decrease as they should, and that affects everybody.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. I do not think it is the habitual drinker who is causing these accidents and deaths; I believe it is the man who takes drinks only now and then. These occasional drinks speed him uip. Speed is another factor that is contributing to the increase in the number of automobile accidents-speed out of all proportion to the safety of road traffic. I certainly shall endorse this bill.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a strong consensus of opinion in this chamber as well as outside in favour of some tightening of the law against reckless driving on the public highway. I am in sympathy with the general principle of the bill that has been submitted by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), and I also agree with most of the sentiments which have been expressed here this afternoon.
In addition to the many causes that have been given for the higher mortality on the public highway, there is one other which perhaps I should mention. It is that our public highways to-day are used more and more for the transportation of goods, as well as for providing services between various communities in this dominion. The transportation of goods over the public highways between towns and cities and provinces to me is a matter of great concern, and I have no doubt that this traffic contributes to a very large degree in creating conditions of greater danger on the public highway. We find these great vehicles constantly on the highways, creating a hazard which never existed before, and I have in mind the vehicles that are used by both individuals and corporations. It is not uncommon to find on the public highway to-day a heavy vehicle itself weighing many tons, carrying a load
[Mr. D. G. Ross. I
of eight or ten tons, and often it will have one or two, and sometimes three, trailers behind it.
In connection with this transportation of goods a question arises which does come under our jurisdiction, and that is the question of the welfare of the men who are hired to drive that kind of vehicle. I have no doubt that the companies engaged in this kind of business select the best men they can get, but it is not uncommon for these men to be out with a vehicle for long hours at a stretch. They may be out for ten or twelve or fourteen hours at a stretch. While the man may not be driving the truck all that time, nevertheless he is on duty indirectly for the whole of that period, and a man who has been out with a truck or other vehicle for eight or ten or twelve hours at a time is no longer in a fit condition to drive on the public highway. This in itself creates a greater hazard both for the trucks on the highway and for traffic in general.
I realize that the granting of these licences is exclusively a matter of provincial jurisdiction; nevertheless I feel that in view of the number of accidents on the highway and in the interests of the individuals themselves, something should be done by tightening the existing law to make the punishment fit the crime at least in some instances. A driver who has been found guilty of driving a truck or car while under the influence of liquor should not be allowed to drive on the public highway for quite a long time. He should not be allowed to drive a truck or any other vehicle, and in addition the car he was using should be impounded for a certain length of time. That would be one safeguard for the public. I do not drive a ear myself, and so I can speak perhaps more freely.
I hope that the minister in dealing with this question this afternoon, and after attempting to gauge what public feeling is in the matter, will not take a negative attitude in regard to this bill. His department, I have no doubt, has been engaged in studying this question for some time, and I hope that he will give his general approval to the principle underlying this bill in order that we may take in this house steps which will tend to make traffic on the highways much safer than it is at the present time.


Mr. A. H. MITCHELL (Medicine Hat):: I have driven many thousands of miles, in many provinces, in several countries, and under all manner of circumstances, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the average motorist and for the administrators of the various laws governing behaviour on the highways. I know there are many avoidable accidents as well as

Criminal Code-Motor Cars
some that are unavoidable. I know also that the demand for speed and the construction of automobiles with tremendous acceleration, power and high velocity appeal to something in my nature that makes me behave differently in an automobile and on a highway than I would do in a drawing room. I speak simply as an experienced automobile driver, and I say that I do not believe laws can be passed to make people courteous and considerate of the rights and privileges of others. In a matter of this kind, where the safety of life and limb is involved, the deterrent effect of these proposed amendments to the criminal code appeals to me, and I feel that the matter should be effectively dealt with, and not lightly dismissed. If this particular bill is not passed, some measure having at least the same effect should be substituted for it.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say immediately that it is my intention to introduce a bill to amend the criminal code, which will be rather extensive, containing alterations of many sections; that not only the proposal of the hon. member who introduced this bill (Mr. Church) but the various suggestions which have been made this afternoon by the speakers will be carefully and duly considered and weighed, and that we shall try to carry out any proposal which is possible and which comes under our jurisdiction, if there is some improvement to be made.
This has been a very interesting discussion, although to some extent a painful one. There is no doubt that the number of deaths caused by motor accidents in Canada is appalling, and that the progress of the motor car levies a heavy toll upon the lives of our fellow citizens. It is the same and even worse in other countries.
The sponsor of this bill has referred to a debate in the British house on this very question, in the month of December. I have read that debate, which any hon. member can see in Hansard of the House of Lords of December 8, and I find from the interesting discussion which took place there, that they are far from considering that the state of the criminal law is the cause of the numerous accidents which happen in the United Kingdom. Indeed, among the matters incident to the discussion, speakers dwelt, for instance, on the consideration that their roads had not been built primarily for the use of motor cars. They spoke of curves, and so forth, and it was suggested that, even at the cost of millions of pounds, the roads should be rebuilt, it being thought that was the main
cause of the accidents. They discussed the question of regulations, of an examination, for example, every year when a driver comes to renew his licence.
The point which the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) has just raised, of competent drivers who are compelled to work for too long hours, also may be relevant to the cause of accidents. But these matters can not very well be dealt with under the criminal code. In the British parliament, of course, they control all that, while here in Canada the provinces control the roads, the licences, and the age of the drivers. I shall consider the subject carefully, but I am free to confess that if a province enacts a statute that the minimum age at which a person may receive a licence shall be sixteen years, or seventeen years, or eighteen years, we cannot legally by an amendment to the criminal code make it a crime. I am not convinced that this parliament can take such action. However, the question is so tremendously important that I am willing to consider everything which has been suggested to-day, to see whether there is not a possibility of making some progress towards doing away with at least part of the evil. I do not know that even a conference as between the provinces to come to some sort of uniformity in the regulations would be effective; that, as suggested by my hon. friend Mr. Massey-I always forget his constituency-


Mr. MASSEY:: Greenwood.


Ernest Lapointe: I am thinking of him more than of his constituency. I do not know that it will be possible to arrive at some sort of national method or policy in connection with our highways.
This having been stated, I agree almost entirely with what was said by the hon. member who introduced the bill, with regard to the principles governing the matter. It is when I come to connect the bill with those principles that I find some difficulty about the matter. For instance, I am in agreement with my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) with regard to those who drive cars while under the influence of liquor. It is unthinkable that any one who has not his faculties should drive a car and endanger the lives of men, women and children on the streets or on the highways. But when we come to such a definition of the law as will prevent such accidents there are difficulties to be dealt with. For instance, I am afraid I do not agree that the changes suggested by my hon. friend would be an improvement. Instead of the word "intoxicated" he suggests the words-

Criminal Code-Motor Cars


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Under the influence of alcohol."


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but it is more than that. The words are:
. . . under the influence of alcohol ... to such a degree as to make him incapable of exercising a safe and proper control of any motor vehicle or automobile.
I am not sure that this would not loosen the law instead of tightening it; but, again, I am willing to give the matter the most careful study.	_	,
With regard to subsection 7 of section 3 it is proposed that:
Any person who, by the operation or use of any vehicle in a culpably negligent manner, but not wilfully or wantonly, occasions the death of another person, shall, upon conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, or to both.
Section 951 of the criminal code provides:
Every count shall be deemed divisible; and if the commission of the offence charged, as described in the enactment creating the offence or as charged in the count, includes the commission of any other offence, the person accused may be convicted of any offence so included which is proved, although the whole offence charged is not proved; or he may be convicted of an attempt to commit any offence so included.
Subsection 3 reads:
Upon a charge of manslaughter arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle the jury may find the accused not guilty of manslaughter but guilty of criminal negligence under section 284, and such conviction shall be a bar to further prosecution for any offence arising out of the same facts.
Section 284 provides that the offence of manslaughter may be reduced to criminal negligence, and the penalty is two years in prison. My hon. friend would change that so that the offence would be culpable negligence and the penalty would be three months instead of two years. I may say that I intend to propose an amendment to this section in view of the fact that the judgment of the criminal courts in England leaves some uncertainty as to the meaning. I believe that the amendment which I intend to propose will be preferable to the section suggested.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is the minister
referring to the Andrews case?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.
My hon. friend also proposes in his bill that anyone who has caused death while driving an automobile shall not be allowed to drive for two years. I shall not discuss the question whether the suspension or the cancellation of a driver's licence is not a purely provincial matter, but his amendment

would be applicable to anyone who has caused the death of any person while driving an automobile, although the death might not have been caused through the fault of the driver. I do not think an innocent person should be penalized. However, that could be changed. I have already stated my doubts as to whether we could make it an 'ndictable offence for anyone under eighteen to drive a motor vehicle if under the law of the province such a person has been granted a licence to drive a car.
I do not think I can add anything to these remarks except to say that I am impressed by the intense feeling which seems to prevail in the house, and I am sure everywhere, that if anything can be done within our jurisdiction to try to prevent or to minimize to some extent this terrible evil which we have in the country, so as to save the lives of at least a few of our fellow citizens, we should do it. My hon. friend has said in advance that the debate will probably be adjourned. I am afraid there can be no other course. It is impossible to give consideration to what has been suggested on all sides this afternoon, and even to the various provisions of the bill itself, without asking the house to adjourn the debate, so that every one of these suggestions may be fully weighed and considered before the bill which I intend to propose as a government measure is introduced. I therefore move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned JAPANESE IMMIGRATION



APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT, REVISED STATUTES, 1927. CHAPTER 95

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved the second reading of Bill No. 11, respecting Japanese immigration.
He said: As I explained on the first reading of the bill, the purport of it is to place Japanese immigration into Canada on exactly the same plane, neither higher nor lower, as that occupied by the Chinese since 1923 when their immigration was last dealt with.
Ever since British Columbia joined confederation the question of oriental immigration and their penetration into every phase of life and industry in that province has been a consideration and an ever-increasing problem for us to deal with there. As far back as 1875 we find the province of British Columbia passing an act forbidding orientals to have votes. At that time the oriental

Japanese Immigration
immigration was entirely Chinese; there were no Japanese. At this point I might follow to its conclusion the history of Chinese immigration, as I want to use it as a parallel to what we should do in connection with the Japanese. Large numbers of Chinese were brought in to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. Their competition in the labour market attracted the ill-will of the labour element, and on representations made the dominion government first in 1885 imposed a poll tax, or an entrance fee if you like, of $50 per head. In 1901 that was increased to S100 and. in 1904, to $500 on every Chinaman entering Canada. It did not apply to Japanese. It was intended to restrict Chinese immigration, but it was not effective. There may have been a temporary check, but it did not amount to anything. It did lead to an undesirable condition, little if at all better than peonage, because large Chinese financial companies would put up the S500 and the man's fare and would proceed to retrieve their money by a lien on the wretched man's wages. That has been done away with for fifteen years, but I am told that there are still Chinamen contributing out of their scanty earnings to repay these big companies which financed their entry into Canada.
Without going into the methods that led to it I will say shortly that in 1923 we passed chapter 95, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927. and I might quote briefly its provisions. From beginning to end it does not use the word "exclusion"; it simply says that entry into Canada is confined to the following classes of people of Chinese origin or descent, then naming the classes: the diplomatic service and those connected with them; children born in Canada going away for their education; merchants and students. That is all. No labour immigration whatever is allowed. And merchants and students are strictly limited; they have to have a passport issued by the Chinese governmeint and visaed by our agent in China. The result has been-it may suit some to say that it is not total exclusion but to all intents and purposes it is total exclusion of Chinese, which it was intended to be. It has worked well, cured a long-standing sore, and there has been no ill-will or dissension or discontent among the Chinese so excluded, with only one exception; they resent and will continue to resent the fact that we have discriminated against them in favour of the Japanese, because we allow a certain number of Japanese to come in. The Chinese also have their pride and do not like this.
Now I have before me the last report of the department of immigration, issued a few days ago. It shows that during the last fiscal year one Chinese immigrant and three students were admitted. And they have a system of allowing Chinese in on temporary permits; missionaries, professors and people like that can come in for a short period, generally six months. Forty-two such permits were issued, and more than half, in fact the bulk of those so admitted, had left Canada within the fiscal year. Chinese went home under circumstances such that they would never be allowed to come back to the number of 1.362. So you can imagine that the Chinese population is rapidly disappearing. Among those that are left the birth rate is very small, because the women are few in number; it only amounts to 5.7, so, that matter is settled.
I have in my hand a report issued by the British Columbia government, prepared by the research department of the economic council, they appear to have been very capable thorough scientific men and their conclusions have been justified by time. They say that in the years 1938 to 1940 inclusive there will be an approximate decrease-note that-of 452 Chinese males thrown upon the labour market. Later on I shall tell you what the effect will be as regards Japanese labour coming on the market, it is a very different story. The Chinese who are left here are treated with respect, they are generally merchants carrying on trade between the two countries, and there is no ill will between us at all with the single exception which I have mentioned.
Coming now to the Japanese, a very different tale must be unfolded. We have a weird thing called a gentleman's agreement with the Japanese. We have had it for many years. It was preceded in 1907, or possibly 1906, by riots in the streets of Vancouver; feeling then as now was running very high-I think it is more intense now- there were riots; I think the Japanese consulate was stoned and windows broken. The Hon. Mr. Lemieux, our late lamented Speaker, was sent to Japan to negotiate what was called a gentleman's agreement. I should like to quote from the debate which took place on his return. Mr. Macpherson, then the member for Vancouver, speaking in the debate, as reported at page 2087 of Hansard of 1907-08, said:
They-
That is, the then government.
-have carried on negotiations with Japan which have resulted in stopping for all time any further influx of Japanese coolies into our country.
Japanese Immigration
[Stage Direction]
Mark that! And I suppose Mr. Mac-pherson believed what he said. But Mr. Sproule said, "How do you know?"
Mr. Macpherson: I will tell my hon. friend how I know. The Minister of Labour has just come back from Japan and he has stated in parliament upon his responsibility as a minister of the crown, that we need never fear any further immigration from Japan. That statement has been accepted by the house; that statement has been accepted by the country.
Mr. Sproule: No.
Mr. Macpherson: My hon. friend says, no.
Mr. Sproule: The hon. gentleman says that statement is accepted by the house and by the country. Had we not years ago a similar statement from the government that the Japanese would regulate immigration, and yet the Japanese government have not regulated immigration to the satisfaction of even the hon. member himself?
He then speaks of a period "four or five years ago," that is, four or five years precedent to 1907 or 1908. So that between thirty-five and forty years ago we were told this old love story, that we could trust the people of Japan and everything would be lovely. And now conditions are worse than they were then.
I think we are the only country in the world, at least we are the only dominion that has an arrangement with Japan which allows labourers to come in. Some of them have gentleman's agreements, but none to let labour come in. Here I Should like to allude to- I do not want to use a harsh word so I will say the secrecy that has always been allowed to cover up and put a smoke screen around this gentleman's agreement. That is one of the worst features of it. I find that in 1908, the Hon. Mr. Lemieux was speaking and he gave a short statement as to what this gentleman's agreement was. It was the most vague and indefinite thing you can conceive. Let me quote the sense of it. I refer to page 1610 of Hansard of January 21, 1908. This is from a letter signed by a Japanese statesman -I do not know what his title was-addressed to Mr. Lemieux:
Acting in this spirit and having particular regard to circumstances of recent occurrence in British Columbia,-
That is the riots.
-the imperial government-
That is the Japanese government.
-have decided to take efficient means to restrict emigation to Canada. In carrying out this purpose, the imperial government, in pursuance of the policy above stated, will give careful consideration to local conditions prevailing in Canada, with a view to meeting the desires of the government of the dominion as far as is compatible with the spirit of the treaty and the dignity of the state.
That is the Japanese state. Well there is nothing very definite about that. Someone
	-
had the temerity to ask in the house just what was to be done: "Will the hon. minister tell the house to what extent the Japanese government promised to restrict emigration?" Mr. Lemieux replied:
My hon. friend is too inquisitive. I will not answer, not from disrespect for him, but because if I did answer I would commit an act unworthy of a Canadian representative and unworthy of myself.
Because he had agreed to various unknown, unstated things; he talks about stringent regulations and then refuses to give the information to the house. Then he says:
There is, however, one feature of these regulations *which I am authorized to make public.
Then he refers to restriction of immigration; but it is all up in the air, in the clouds, and as we afterwards found out it stayed in the clouds. The result was that although the thing was supposed to be in existence, nobody knew anything about it. I once asked an immigration official this question: "If the Japanese gentleman's agreement calls for only four hundred a year"-for that is what it did at the time-"why did seventeen hundred come in last year?" The answer I got was, "I don't know. I have never seen the gentleman's agreement, and when a fellow comes along and says he is coming in under the gentleman's agreement, we allow him to come in because we do not know anything to the contrary." There was an entire lack of what you might call fixity as to what the thing was or what it meant.
Mr. CRERAR:: May I ask at what time the incident took place to which my hon. friend just referred?


Mr. NEILL:: The gentleman's agreement
was in 1908.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: When did the seventeen hundred Japanese come in?


Alan Webster Neill: It was along about 1917, as far as my memory serves me. but the figures were always exceeded. The gentleman's agreement was not a gentleman's agreement; it was a gentleman's joke as far as one party to the bargain was concerned.
We are talking about a gentleman's agreements. I have in my hand a gentleman's agreement about which there is no secrecy. This is a white paper, which corresponds to our Canadian blue-books, issued by the government of South Africa. Here is the gentleman's agreement made with Japan, all above board; here they say who are to be allowed

Japanese Immigration
in, and who are not: 1. Tourists; 2. Persons visiting the Union solely for the purpose of study or scientific investigation; 3. Wholesale merchants and buyers of South African produce for export as well as their respective staffs; 4. The wives and children of any person admitted under paragraphs 1. 2 and 3. That is all. There was no labour immigration there; no permanency, because the agreement continues:
The permits issued under this understanding shall be for one year-
And they were renewable at the option of the government. To make it quite clear that South Africa was to remain a white Africa, this further clause was added:
Children born to any such person during such temporary domicile shall have no claim in consequence to Union nationality, birthright or domicile.
That is a very fine gentleman's agreement; it is above board, for all to read and understand, and there is no labour immigration involved at all. It simply covers, as I have said, the diplomatic service, tourists, scientists, wholesale merchants and their wives and children.
However, we got a gentleman's agreement, such as it was. It proved to be Dead sea fruit as far as we were concerned, partly due to the secrecy involved and partly due to the necessarily loosely worded agreement made between two gentlemen who, it is expected, will vie with each other to see that they live up not to the letter but beyond the letter of the agreement. It does not work, however, when you make agreements like that and one of the parties is so mentally constituted, probably by tradition and heritage-I do not blame them altogether-that they do not deem it any dishonour to break even a written bargain, as we have seen in recent times, let alone one so vaguely expressed. That was the weak point.
After the war, feeling again ran very high, and in the spring of 1922 the hon. gentleman who now represents Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), but who then represented Vancouver Centre, called together the British Columbia members. I think that was the first and only time the British Columbia members united about anything. There were four groups represented in that room on that occasion, and we agreed to introduce a resolution asking for the total exclusion of orientals. The government insisted on taking out those
words and putting in " effective restriction," saying that meant the same thing. At page 1573 of Hansard for that session I asked:
Can the leader of the government give us an asurance that, in his mind, the words "effective restriction" in the amendment convey such a measure of restriction as is, at least, equal to the present immigration act in force in Australia to-day?
In Australia at that time they had no gentleman's agreement, or if they had they also had a test by which the Japanese were totally excluded. It was a language test, which I need not go into now. The answer was:
Mr. Mackenzie King:	I have in mind the
same object exactly as the people of the country to which my hon. friend has referred had in mind when they enacted their legislation, namely to have a restriction that will be effective.
The then leader of the opposition, the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, suggested other words. He said, " Well, if you do not like the word 'exclusion'; if that is offensive to the Japanese, why not use the word ' prohibition '?" When that was not accepted by the government he suggested other words, such as " for residence purposes," but that was not accepted. Then he suggested another phrase, " bringing to an end further such immigration for residence purposes." He made an honest attempt to produce something that would really mean effective restriction, but the government did not accept any of his suggestions and put through their amendment using the words " effective restriction " instead of " total exclusion."
After that our committee of British Columbia members more or less disbanded and lost heart. Three of us carried on, two members from British Columbia who were on the Liberal side at that time, and myself. But we soon found that effective restriction did not mean the same as total exclusion, as carried out in Australia, by any means. However, we got something in 1923; we got the Chinese exclusion act put through, to which I have just referred. It worked well and, as I have said, it would have been all right if only we had included the Japanese as well. We used every influence we possessed and every influence we could influence to try to get the Japanese included as well.
Some of the members who came into the house when I did, in 1921, will remember- some of them have happily and conveniently forgotten-that during the strenuous times of 1922 and 1923 and more particularly 1925 and 1926, the minor groups in the house possessed a great deal more influence in regard to legislation than they do now. Even
Japanese Immigration

the voice of a lone independent was more vibrant before 1926 than it is now that big majorities have become the order of the day. Possibly that is a good thing for the big parties, but I do not know if it is a good thing for the small groups and the people they represent, who are generally what might be called underprivileged or those seeking some social or legislative justice but who are not sufficiently powerful to attract or command the notice and attention of the bigger parties. However, wTe kept on. We got the act respecting the Chinese, and it was a success. I well remember the bitter controversy at that time. The senate was lobbied; we were lobbied, and there was a tremendous uproar over the passing of that act, but there has not been a word of objection since. It was a success; in a word, it worked.
We were denied the same legislation with regard to Japanese. Time went on. My two confreres from British Columbia were defeated, largely because of the attitude of the government they had supported in making these promises and not delivering the goods. I persevered, but it was not until 1928, six years after the promise, that I secured even a measure of fulfilment of that promise with regard to the Japanese. The government of that day amended the gentleman's agreement, and so far as that amendment went I give full credit and thanks to the then Prime Minister, who is also the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). He did two good things. First he cut the number down from 400 to 150. Then, more important, he arranged that the great bulk of these immigrants would come in under the jurisdiction, so to speak, of our Immigration Act and our immigration authorities. That was a very good thing indeed. He also arranged that immigrants had to have their passports visaed in Japan by one of our agents there. It placed the agreement more or less under our control- but only more or less.
Since then the agreement has been in force and I am told-and it is easily ascertainable- that in several cases and, perhaps, in most of the years, less than the quota has come in. Perhaps that has been largely due to the depression and, in later years, due to internal conditions in Japan.
However, the usual loophole has been discovered, as it always has been, and always will be. by which more Japanese have come in under this gentleman's agreement, as it is interpreted. I need not go into it now, but it does permit people to come in that I, at least, never contemplated would be allowed to come in except under the quota. If it came

about that the Japanese were determined to force immigration, they would be able to do it, under the terms of this loophole. The really fatal mistake was in not making the Chinese act of 1923 apply to the Japanese also. The United States had done it, just about that time. They were threatened with tremendous consequences; sabres and swords were waved, but nothing happened. They were threatened with an enormous loss of trade-which would have lasted only two or three months. Trade will always go where trade finds it is best adapted to go, and it does not pay attention to matters of this kind.
If we had done it then we would only have been in line with the other dominions and, so far as 1 know, with other countries as well. The principle has often been laid down to protect the people native to a country against incursions, however legal, of aliens. By the native I do not mean the aborigines alone; they may be natives in the sense of having long occupancy in a country.
In Kenya colony in East Africa the British government, which has control, said they found it necessary to record their considered opinion that the interests of African natives must be paramount, and that if and when those interests and the interests of the immigrant nations conflicted, the former should prevail. That was the view taken by the British government.
Next we find General Smuts in a speech referring to the "warping influence of the fear of ultimate black domination." If we substitute the word "Japanese" for "black" we have described the situation in British Columbia in our own country. He there mentioned the "warping influence of the fear of ultimate black domination."
Mr. K. K. Kawakami, one of Japan's most distinguished publicists, in an article written a few years ago said this:
People accustomed to low wages and therefore a low standard of living can successfully compete with and ultimately defeat people with a higher standard of living.
Sure. Here is the last illustration. I see connected with it the name of Sir Shenton Thomas, the gentleman who opened the Singapore base the other day. He was the governor, or whatever the position is, of the Malay colony. In this case, the Chinese and Indians, who were aliens, came in bringing in capital and dominating industry, and they were beginning to make demands for a place in the sun-jobs in the civil service, and permanent positions like that. He gave them what is described in the article as a cold rebuff when he announced that there would

Japanese Immigration
be no appointments to administrative positions among non-Malay Asiatics. They became angry, and said that much of the development was due to their effort, and so on.
Sir Shenton Thomas said that he did not deny that fact, but argued that the Malayan was in danger of being dispossessed in his own country, and that therefore special measures were necessary for his own protection. Some extensive land reservations which can never pass out of Malayan ownership, and certain non-manual government branches virtually reserved to Malayans, are included in such measures.
That gives an illustration of what I have in mind. But we took the opposite view. Let me quote Mr. Lemieux in this connection. I do not suppose he thought he was making history, when he said, at page 1591 of Hansard for 1908:
The policy of this government has always been to let Japan herself regulate and restrict voluntarily the emigration of her subjects;-
That is, the emigration to Canada-
-any other policy would not have been successful with that nation.
That is the trouble. We have surrendered our right of control of the immigration into our country of the subjects of a foreign nation. There was the initial mistake, and it has endured ever since. That will conclude my observations on this phase of the matter. I would ask that you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, the modified gentleman's agreement of which I spoke before six o'clock, and which came into effect, I think, in September, 1928, had five major bad consequences or effects.
First, it missed a good opportunity of settling once for all a question that was bound to rise up again and again, and be more and more troublesome each time it came up.
Second, being a gentleman's agreement, of very necessity its terms were so slack that it offered large opportunities for evasion. I said, in speaking this afternoon, that the quota had been generally lived up to. Yes, according to the figures you will get over at the immigration department, if you send for them, that is correct.
But this is an instance that came to my notice. It is in a confidential statement, and I cannot give its source, but every name is
given, and I can guarantee- its bona fides. The mounted police had in hand certain fraudulent transactions in connection with birth certificates, and they found that seventy-five Japanese birth certificates had been faked and 117 fishing licences illegally obtained. The Japanese interpreter-and the interpreter is always Japanese, never a white man-went to the penitentiary for two and a half years over that, but I do not suppose there is a member of the house who has ever heard a word of that transaction but myself. Now, if after investigation they managed to find seventy-five such instances, surely we can suppose that at least three times that number actually evaded the regulations. Other members, no doubt, can give similar instances.
In any case, even supposing there is no evasion, the Japanese agreement allows an increase of the adult Japanese population every year in a situation which is already overloaded. I quote again the British Economic Council's report, which was a very valuable document, and time has proved how accurately and carefully it was drawn up. They say that in the years from 1936 to 1940 the increase of Japanese will throw on the labour market 3.874 people, or an average of 774 a year. That was not an increase to the population by way of infants, but the number that would be thrown on to the labour market in those years, and it gives an average -and they itemize it, by both birth and immigration-of 774. That could well be done away with, considering the situation in British Columbia.
The third objection is that in times of depression, when it is necessary to forbid our own white citizens from the British Empire entering this country, and the Bennett government in, I think, 1931 or possibly 1930, passed an order in council seriously restricting the immigration of ordinary labourers from the British Isles, and necessarily so. for the protection of the Canadian working man-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is still in force.


Alan Webster Neill: But at that same time, under the gentleman's agreement, the Japanese could send in their quota, and as much more as they could get away with, in defiance of any immigration order the government had passed. That is the serious objection. It is a wholly untenable and undesirable position for us to be in.
Fourth-and this is one of the major objections-it hands over the control of immigration to the judgment of an alien nation- a thing that is not done anywhere else in the world.

Japanese Immigration
Let me quote from page 2039 of volume 2 of Hansard of 1908, and this is no mere back bencher like myself speaking, but a man whose words are entitled to some respect, the late Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden. He said:
Now I come more particularly to the results of the mission to Japan of my hon. friend the Postmaster General. The real object of his mission was to induce Japan to exercise that control over immigration into Canada which we should be able to exercise ourselves. It is one of the attributes of the sovereign power of any state to restrict, or even altogether prohibit, the entrance of aliens within its territory. If we had preserved that right by the stipulation insisted upon by the Conservative government in August, 1895, there would have been no difficulty. We did not reserve that right; therefore, having passed over to the Japanese government that control which should have been exercised by ourselves, it became necessary for my hon. friend the Postmaster General to go to the Japanese government and to ask them to exercise some control and some regulation.
At another point the same gentleman moved an amendment to this effect to the motion which was before the house, at page 2146 of the same volume of Hansard:
That this house while expressing its profound appreciation of the friendly intentions and courteous assurances of the Japanese government, and while declaring its sincere desire for the most cordial relations with the Japanese people, desires nevertheless to record its strong protest against a policy under which our wageearning population cannot be protected from destructive invading competition except by entreating the forbearance and aid of a foreign government.
The words "wage-earning" might now be taken out and there be inserted instead "the population of British Columbia", because it is no longer the wage-earners' problem, but applies to every industry, high and low, in the province.
Worst of all, the agreement even as amended puts us :n the most invidious position as regards China. China has been a divided nation, and therefore has received perhaps less attention than she should have, but she will come back a unified nation with her four hundred millions of population, with her trained soldiers-I think it was General Gordon who said that the Chinese soldiers were the best in the world-and with her market potentialities of four hundred million purchasers. We will go to China and she will say: You want to trade with us, but why do you treat us so differently from the way you treat the Japanese? And what answer can we give? We shall then be in this position: Either we shall have to reinstate Chinese immigration, which is very unde-
[Mr. Neill.1
sirable, or under the pressure of China's population of four hundred millions and her soldiers we shall have to put the Japanese back where I now seek to put them. If we are going to do it under pressure from China then, why not let us do it now with all the good will that comes from a free will act of justice? Let us do it now rather than under pressure later.
I remember that Mr. Meighen, when the debate was on in 1922, said this:
Let us proceed to argument. I stated first that there had been effective exclusion of the inhabitants of China in the United States. My hon. friend-
That was the then Prime Minister:
My hon. friend says: "Oh, yes, but China is not a first class power."
Then Mr. Meighen continued:
Are we to modify our language according to the number of troops that there may be in the nation to which that language refers? I do not think Japan would expect us to do that; I do not think China would be flattered to know that that is the reason she is excluded.
That is all I have to say about the gentleman's agreement. I have been told that my bill does not go far enough; that it does not touch the biggest feature of all, and I admit it. The biggest feature of all is the enormous birthrate of the Japanese in British Columbia about 38 per thousand as against 18. I have in my hand figures, and I shall give them briefly.
The school enrolment in British Columbia in the ten years 1927 to 1937 went up twelve per cent; the Japanese enrolment went up eighty-eight per cent. These are significant figures; multiply them by the next ten or twenty years and what kind of situation does it present to your mind? The answer is, of course, that we cannot stop their birth rate- unless we are prepared to bring them under the provisions of chapter 258 of the revised statutes of British Columbia-but we can at least stop adult immigration coming in to add to the vicious circle-more immigrants, more children, more men and women thrown on the labour market, and not only the labour market but all industries in British Columbia. Since even 1923 the legal immigration would mean perhaps twenty-three or twenty-five hundred people, all young people with the potentialities of large families. It may be said: Let us deport them. That is impossible. But we can at least stop the legal entry of them, and above all stop the loopholes that seem inevitably to be connected with any gentleman's agreement, however carefully drawn.

Japanese Immigration
I ask support of this bill on its merits, to correct past errors and prevent more. I ask support from hon. members from all over Canada. It may be said that the east has no such problem. I tell hon. members from Quebec province and also those representing the industrial centres of Ontario: It does concern you. It concerns you vitally. Your line of defence against fatally cheap labour competition is not Montreal or Toronto; it is in British Columbia; it may be our trouble to-day, but it is your's to-morrow. If you in Quebec had the oriental population that we have the numbers would be 265,000; in Ontario they would be 312,000. Just where would you be then? Remember they are all of alien thought and mind and tendency; they are all one body, acting and thinking as a unit. Just where would you put 312,000 in Ontario, and how would you like to have them?
I ask support to this bill with no idea, no hint of taking advantage of the popular prejudice on account of what has gone on during the last year or two. I have never mentioned the war. I ask support on a nonpartisan basis. This is not a bill brought down by the government, immediately ipso facto to be opposed by the opposition. It is not brought in by the opposition, immediately to be regarded as suspect by the government, as a device to embarrass them. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) recently said, with reference to a matter brought in by a private member, " It is a good thing to have a frank and sincere consideration of the subject." It may be well said, if we pass this bill, that it is not the act of any party in the house, it is the act of parliament, which is paramount. Therefore, in all sincerity, I ask the support of every member of this house to this bill.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: In rising to speak in support of this bill I realize that it is difficult for hon. members from the other provinces of Canada to appreciate the situation in British Columbia. I thought this afternoon, as I saw the attention with which the members present in the house were following the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), that it would have cheered the hearts of the people of British Columbia if they could have been in the gallery to notice that attention. Because after all this question of Japanese immigration is of vital importance to our province, and there is no way in which the people of the rest of Canada can win the friendship and gratitude of British Columbians more readily than by listening to their case on this subject of immigration
and helping them to solve the problem. It is a problem which is steadily getting worse; the position has become more serious year after year. I believe I am the only real British Columbian in this house.


Mr. MacNEIL:: Oh! Oh!


Mr. STIRLING:: Explain.


Howard Charles Green: Our province is represented by members who were bom in Scotland, in Ireland, in England, and one hon. member, of whom we are very proud, was bom in Sweden; we even have members who were born in Ontario and the maritime provinces; but I am afraid that I am the only one born in British Columbia. Apparently the old adage, "A prophet is not without honour save in his own country," is applicable to that province. However, I mention myself for the reason only that ever since my childhood-and I am sure that most of the younger men and women who were born in British Columbia have had the same experience-this issue has hung over the province like a black cloud, steadily growing larger, the situation steadily getting worse. It would be impossible for my fellow members from other parts of Canada to realize how seriously we treat this matter, and I ask of you to-night that in considering this bill you approach it in a non-partisan and non-political way, as fellow Canadians concerned to solve a difficult problem in a sensible manner.
The real problem with which the people of British Columbia are faced is this:	First of
all, how can oriental immigrants and their descendants be assimilated? That is the basis of the problem. Second, if these oriental immigrants and their descendants cannot be assimilated, then what is to be done with them? It is not only the most serious problem facing British Columbia but also, I suggest, one of the gravest questions facing the people of Canada as a whole.
The first step towards a solution is to stop further immigration. That course was taken many years ago by the other nations which were faced with the same difficulty, for instance, by Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America. Canada herself went part of the way as far back as 1908, when she nogatiated a gentleman's agreement with Japan limiting Japanese immigrants to approximately 400. Again in 1923, as the hon. member for Comox-Albemi has pointed out so clearly, Canada realized that oriental immigration must be further checked, when she enacted the Chinese Immigration Act. At that time the Chinese population of
Japanese Immigration

British Columbia was far greater than the Japanese population, and the Chinese were coming into the country in far larger numbers than the Japanese. The question of Chinese immigration was more serious than that of Japanese immigration. The parliament of Canada, under our present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) faced that problem and passed the Chinese Immigration Act. The result has been that in the thirteen years following the enactment of that- legislation only eight Chinese immigrants have been admitted to Canada. The government of British Columbia estimates that the Chinese population of that province is falling; that it has dropped approximately five thousand during the last six years, and is now only about twenty-two thousand.
Canada again recognized the principle that further immigration should be stopped, or at any rate should be further checked, when in 1929 the Canadian government negotiated an alteration in the gentleman's agreement with Japan, cutting down the number of immigrants from 400 to 150. But during the thirteen years in which only eight Chinese came into Canada, there were 3,411 Japanese immigrants coming into the country and the Japanese population was growing steadily. Now the British Columbia government estimate that there are approximately 30,000 Japanese in the province, and it is certain that that province has reached the stage where it can absorb no more. The time has come to stop further Japanese immigration.
To show you the attitude of the people of British Columbia I quote from an editorial appearing in the Vancouver Daily Province of February 2, this year. I believe it gives the opinion of practically every one in British Columbia. This editorial reads in part:
We have plenty of room for immigrants, but it is immigrants who are assimilable that we want and the Japanese are not assimilable. We have about 30,000 Japanese in British Columbia, now, and these, with their natural increase, are rather more than we can comfortably handle. All immigration from Asia should be stopped.
There are several features of this Japanese immigration which make it very serious. The first is that practically all Japanese immigrants settle in British Columbia; they do not spread out to the other provinces. For instance, in the last fiscal year 103 were admitted under the gentleman's agreement, and of that number 101 settled in British Columbia, only two settling outside; those two went to Alberta. Over ninety per cent of the Japanese in Canada, reside in British Columbia, whereas of the Chinesse less than sixty per cent reside in our province, the

others being scattered throughout the other provinces, and yet a worse feature is that ninety per cent of the Japanese in Canada are concentrated in the coast area of British Columbia. They are not scattered across the province, but are concentrated along the coast. Just to bring it home to hon. members from other parts of the country I would point out that if the same proportion of the population of Manitoba were Japanese, you would have this picture: there would be 30,000 Japanese settled within a few miles of Winnipeg. That would correspond to the actual settlement about Vancouver. In Ontario, on the same basis, it would mean 150,000 Japanese settled in and around Toronto and central Ontario. In Quebec there would be 120,000 settled, say about Montreal and Quebec and up the St. Lawrence valley. In New Brunswick there would be 17,000 settled around St. John and up the St. John river, and in Nova Scotia there would be 20,000 Japanese settled in and about Halifax. That will give you some idea of the Japanese settlement in British Columbia at the present time.
The second serious feature about this immigration is that there are more women coming in than men, and that has been the situation for many years. For instance, during the last fiscal year there were thirty-nine males and sixty-four females, and on December 31, 1936, the Japanese population of British Columbia consisted of approximately 56-7 per cent males and 43-3 per cent females, the percentage of females having risen from year to year. With the Chinese on the other hand, 90 per cent were males and only 10 per cent females.
The third serious feature is that the birthrate among the Japanese population in British Columbia is far higher than that of any other race. The Japanese birthrate is twenty per thousand; the birthrate of whites in British Columbia is only 13-6 per thousand, and the Chinese birthrate is 6-1 per thousand. This shows that the situation is bound to get worse from year to year.


Alan Webster Neill: I think the hon. gentleman will find that the Japanese birthrate is higher than that, 36 or 38.


Howard Charles Green: Well, it is bad enough. The situation is really this: There is growing up in British Columbia a state within a state. The Japanese people do not intermarry with the whites; and mind you, they are just as much opposed to such intermarriage as the whites are. It is not a question of one race being superior and the other inferior; the simple fact is that intermarriage is not wished by either race. Then there is the question of language. The Japanese even have their own

Japanese Immigration
schools after the regular day school in order that Japanese children born in British Columbia may learn the Japanese language as well as the English.
Again, employment in the industries of the province is seriously affected. For example, in the fishing industry, one of our great industries, there are over 2,000 licences issued to Japanese, and we estimate that there are over 1,200 Japanese fishing boats plying up and down the coast, in and out of our harbours. In order to get licences the Japanese must be naturalized, and I do not think there is any question that in many cases they have taken out naturalization papers just for the purpose of being able to get fishing licences.
There are thousands of Japanese farming, carrying on principally poultry farming and the growing of small fruits; many of them are scattered up the Fraser valley. At the present time hundreds and thousands of prairie people are coming into British Columbia as a result of the drought and they are forced to compete with these Japanese already settled on the land. We have a chance to help the very best settlers any province could wish to have, and yet we are handicapped at every step because there are so many Japanese engaged in the same line of endeavour.
Many of them have gone into the lumber business, into pulp and paper, and into mining, while in the cities on the coast hundreds of them are in business. I have before me a list of the licences issued by the city of Vancouver in the year 1937, showing that there were 795 licences issued to Japanese and 644 to Chinese, covering nearly every line of business. There are fifteen Japanese apartment house proprietors; nine auto repairers; thirty-nine barbers; eight boot and shoe repairers; eighty candy merchants; one hundred and fifteen cleaners and dyers; forty-four dressmakers; eighteen fish dealers; twenty-one greengrocers; one hundred and ten grocers. And I was told shortly before leaving for Ottawa, that there was even a real danger of the Japanese running the chain stores out of the grocery business in Vancouver, from which hon. members can realize what effect they have on the white merchants who are trying to compete with them. There are also seven tailors; one hundred and twenty-nine lodging houses; eleven manufacturers; thirty-two restaurants; fourteen miscellaneous retail stores; seven ;eweliers; twenty-three wholesale dealers; ten express and dray enterprises and many other occupations.
The competition of these immigrants with our white people is absolutely unfair. They have a lower standard of living. Their ways
of living make it frightfully difficult for us to carry out our social security laws. It is very difficult to make them comply with those laws, which means unfair competition for the white people who do try to comply with them. In farming their competition is most unfair, because farm labour immigrants, who have to be placed with Japanese farmers, work for a few dollars a month or a year; no one knows what they get, probably not much more than their board; but the result is that the Japanese farmer with this cheap labour is forcing off the land the white farmer who has to pay proper wages to his men. The same thing is true in fishing, Japanese helping other Japanese. The Japanese merchants in the cities live in the back of the stores, and not having expenses to meet such as the white merchant has, can drive the latter out of a district. It has always been believed, although I cannot prove it, that the Canadian Japanese Association or the Japanese consulate stands behind these men financially when they wish to buy a farm or a fishing boat or go into business, and that they can get capital from such sources at a rate of interest far lower than can be obtained by a white man.
That gives the house a rough picture of the situation. Always we have been met with the statement that we must do nothing which will upset our relations with Japan, but I believe that the Japanese government appreciates our difficulty just as well as we appreciate it ourselves. The Japanese government has on different occasions shown an understanding of the situation; these gentleman's agreements are evidence of that; and I believe that government will realize that this situation is one with which Canada must deal. I think Japan will respect us all the more for facing the problem. I cast no aspersions on the Japanese people or the Japanese government. That nation deserves the greatest credit for what it has done, for the way it has progressed. Probably no nation in the history of the world has done so well in so short a time. The Japanese race are merely different from our race; perhaps in some things they are not as good, in others are better. But our problem is simply the question of whether or not we can assimilate the race in this nation we are trying to build.
In conclusion, I would emphasize again that the need for this legislation is clear, and that now is the time to act. The problem gets more difficult the longer it is put off. There is no reason why parliament should hesitate about these obvious remedies. After all, the Canadian people are a people of courage, of initiative, of sound judgment, and the Canadian parliament should show courage in tack-
Japanese Immigration

ling such problems as this. We boast of being a nation, and this parliament should realize that nationhood involves being able to decide for ourselves what is to be done in Canada. Let us treat this matter as the serious national problem it is, and thereby as well show the people of British Columbia that it is possible for them to have their problems considered here and dealt with, despite the fact that parliament sits three thousand miles away from that great province.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: The oriental question in British Columbia is one of the most serious questions facing the people of that province to-day. It has come to the front perhaps more during this time of depression than at any other period. I have always held the opinion that Canada maybe was wrong in differentiating as between the oriental races; I believe we should have treated the	Japanese the	same	as we treated	theChinese, and not favoured the people from Japan while excluding the Chinese. The two hon. members who have spoken before me on	this question	have	covered practically
every aspect of the situation, but there are one or two matters upon which I should like to dwell in the short time at my disposal. I say that because later on I intend to deal with this question as it affects the fishing industry in our province, particularly on the Fraser river.
I	wonder how	many	hon members	areaware that the Chinese	who come to	this
country have contributed well over $21,000,000 to the national exchequer. They are practically the only oriental people coming to this country who have had to pay a head tax. From the records of the immigration department I find that from 1885 to 1923, which was the year that the doors were closed to the Chinese, the sum of $21,223,150 was paid by some 82,370 Chinese entering Canada. So I do not think the Japanese have cause to complain that they are being picked upon at this time if our criticism is levelled more at them than at the Chinese. I may point out that the number of Chinese in Canada is getting less, due to the fact that many of them are dying off, and also that only ten per cent of the Chinese in British Columbia are females as against fifty per cent of the Japanese, who, I believe, have a studied policy in connection with their emigration of seeing that enough females go to the various countries along with the males so that the Japanese stock will be maintained in those countries. I wonder how many hon. members are aware that according to the Japanese year book, issued, I assume, under
the authority of the Japanese government, in 1930 over 28,000,000 yen were sent back to Japan by Japanese residents abroad, and that the total number of Japanese abroad in the various countries of the world in 1930 was 634,913. The total for the United States and Canada was given as 120,000. They have gone into practically every country in the world, including Great Britain, where the report shows some 1,500.
I was interested in figures presented by the Japanese delegation which came to Ottawa in 1936, and appeared before the franchise and elections committee. They seemingly came armed with information as to the numbers of their race resident in British Columbia. They told that committee that according to a census taken by themselves there were only some 19,960 resident in that province. Of that number 10,965, they stated, were Canadian born, leaving only some 8,995 who, therefore, must have come into the country. Yet, according to the Japanese year book for 1930, Japan claimed to have over
21.000	resident in British Columbia alone. A careful survey was made in British Columbia by the provincial government and a very conservative estimate of the number in that province would be 30,000.
Mention has been made of the increasing birth rate. It is rather a problem, because the estimated birth rate of the Japanese is between fifty and sixty per thousand as against eighteen per thousand for the white population. If it were worked out in that ratio it would be discovered that even if we closed the gate now-and by the way, I am in favour of that-in twenty-five years there would be
67.000	Japanese in British Columbia.
While I am all in favour of the principle
of the bill, I am afraid that we are just a little late in closing the gate. There is another aspect of the matter, in connection with the number who have come in during the years of the depression. While that number is not as alarming as in years gone by, still it is disturbing indeed to find that Japanese with five or ten acres of land in the Fraser valley can make application, and have been doing so, under the dominion immigration laws to bring in the odd Japanese, presumably to work on the ranch. But if one would follow up that man who is brought in, it would be found that he stays perhaps one month or two months working on the land and then is slipped into industry. It is no wonder that our people are very much perturbed over such a situation, when in many industries they find men from . Japan who

Japanese Immigration
have been here only three or four months but who have found employment while our own people have been walking the streets.
I well remember making the statement in the house in 1931 that there were hundreds if not thousands of citizens of Japan in this country illegally. The then Minister of Immigration-I suppose he had to do it- got up and denied the truth of such a statement. But, Mr. Speaker, I discovered that later on instructions were issued to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to make a careful survey, or as careful as possible, of the situation. Just before I left for Ottawa to attend the present session I was told by the authorities that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had discovered close to six hundred who had entered this country without papers, surreptitiously, and that nine hundred others had suddenly left the country when they realized that they were going to be checked up by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is a serious situation. I was not glad to hear the statement; I mention it here because it substantiates what I said on the floor of the house when I was on the other side of it, that there are hundreds and hundreds of Japanese who entered this country surreptitiously, and we have advocated that perhaps a closer check should be made of their numbers, with a view to finding out exactly who should or should not be in this country. I should like to have serious note taken of the entry of those who come presumably to work on the land but who, after being here one, two or three months, find their way into various industries and compete, and very successfully, with our own people.
My purpose in rising at this time, Mr. Speaker, was to join with the two previous speakers and the sponsor of the bill. I am entirely in accord with the principle contained in this legislation and desire to lend it all the support of which I am capable, although I realize that the matter is not one capable of easy solution. We may, at least, take a step in the right direction.
I am not going to make any extended remarks at present because on the order paper in my name there is a resolution asking for a cut in the number of Japanese fishing licences, and when that resolution is under discussion I intend to deal with the matter as it affects the fishing industry in British Columbia and particularly in the Fraser river area. My purpose in rising at this time is at least to show where I stand on the question, and I trust that a solution may be 51952-36
found so that, if at all possible, a stop may be put to the entry of these people, and they may be placed on the same footing as those from other oriental countries.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Mr. Speaker, no doubt it will be found that the members from British Columbia are unanimously in favour of the principle of the bill which has been introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I think the previous speakers are to be complimented upon the restraint they have exercised, because much might have been said that would have added to the bitterness and the racial prejudice which are becoming more and more evident in that province.
The chief arguments in support of the bill have been ably stated already. I merely wish to indicate my support of the principle incorporated in this measure, and to touch upon one or two phases of the problem as they appeal to me. I think there is no longer any point in encouraging immigration from Japan, particularly that class of immigrants that enters into direct competition with the workers in our industrial enterprises in British Columbia. Any further immigration can only serve to aggravate a problem of which all the representatives from British Columbia are fully aware and which in some respects casts a shadow over community development, harmony and cooperation in many areas in that province.
One point I wish to stress at this moment is that the situation is bringing about dangerous friction and racial prejudice, producing a tension in community life that is not to be desired. In my opinion this tension is due very largely to the growing distrust of the policy of the Japanese authorities with regard to this problem of immigration. There is a growing conviction-and no doubt on this score the government has definite evidence- that the agreement has been violated in many respects, to the disadvantage of the people of British Columbia. Whether or not that conviction or belief is well founded, the uncertainty exists, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has stated, because of the ambiguous terms of the gentleman's agreement. No one can be at all definite as to the number of people, particularly Japanese labourers, who are being admitted into the province at this time, and therefore I wish to indicate my support of the principle contained in this bill. I think there would be no better time to raise the barriers against immigration from Japan.
I had hoped that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in his remarks would indicate just how he would suggest negotiations might

Japanese Immigration

proceed so that the barriers might be raised without precipitating any international complication. No doubt by proclaiming this amending bill at the proper time any such complication might be successfully avoided; but after some study of this problem I am definitely of the opinion that, in the interests of our own population in British Columbia, at this time we should not give the Japanese people any preferential consideration in regard to immigration regulations, and that in order to prevent any aggravation of a serious problem we should take definite steps to r'aise the bars against further immigration.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill before the house, and to congratulate the mover and also the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) upon the very able manner in which they have placed before the house arguments in favour of the measure.
I do not intend to go into details. All I wish to say is that for several years the matter has been brought before the house, and it has always been looked upon by the people of eastern Canada as one confined to British Columbia. But I think, now that trouble in the orient has developed, and in view of the rush on the part of the Minister of Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) to see that defences are built on the Pacific coast, that not only the government but the people in eastern Canada feel that the oriental problem in British Columbia is a Canadian problem.
I am not going into further particulars, but I would ask every hon. member, whether from Ontario, Quebec or the maritime provinces to take the measure into serious consideration. It has been said that we are a little late in closing the gate. I agree with that. It should have been closed at the time we closed the gate against the Chinese. There was just as much reason to close it against the Japanese. Due to that action there has been little or no immigration from China, and yet we are on the very best terms with that country.
I trust that the government may accept the bill and that it may become law, so that we may now close the gates and relieve the problem w'hich we have on the Pacific coast...
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not rise in support of the bill so ably presented by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill). At the same time I should1 like to compliment him upon the able manner in which he presented the position of

British Columbia and, I believe, the position of Canada, with regard to the problem of oriental immigration.
May I also congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) upon his very able contribution. I, too, with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) am pleased at the lack of bitterness which has been shown by hon. members who have discussed the measure. Only those people who come from British Columbia can realize just what oriental immigration to that province really meatis. I was pleased to hear that the hon. member for Vancouver South is a native son of British Columbia. But, even at that, I think I have been watching the oriental problem in that province longer than he has. and probably I appreciate the problem as well as he does, even if he does come from Vancouver, where the great majority of Japanese are.
The oriental question in my constituency has reached the same proportions, in relation to the population, as it has in Vancouver. For instance, the tomato canning industry around Kamloops is almost entirely in the hands of Japanese, Chinese and Hindoos. To some extent the native Indians work when the tomatoes are being picked. Most of that business is in the hands of the Japanese.
Very little could be added to what has already been said. There are one or two observations, however, upon which I might spend a few moments. One of these is the difficulty the law enforcement officers of British Columbia encounter in making the orientals live up to the minimum wage laws. I believe the Japanese are the greatest offenders in this respect. Possibly their business methods are responsible for this fact. It may be that not any more than other people have they a desire to evade the law, but there is an evasion of the law by reason of their business method. For instance, there may be twenty employees in a shingle bolt camp who must operate under the minimum wage laws as laid down by the province. The Japanese evade the law by forming partnerships, and each man working in their shingle bolt camps would be working as a partner of the concern. They are all bosses, and the law would not apply to them. They will work for fourteen or sixteen hours, or as many daylight hours as there may be in a day, for half the wages a white man would receive for eight hour's work. I believe nothing more need be said, except to point out how utterly impossible it is for white labour to compete under those circumstances.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has called attention to the illegal

Japanese Immigration
entry of Japanese. This may have been going on along the coast of British Columbia, from the northern end of Vancouver island up to Alaska, to a far greater extent than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police realize. By people who live in the country around there I am reliably informed that there come in many Japanese in what are supposed to be boats that are fishing in those waters. They are landed, and the boat goes back to Japan. I do not live in that part of the country and do not know whether this assumption is based on fact, but I have received reliable information to the effect that it is so.
I think the time has long since passed when we should have closed the door. But let us not wait until the white people have been forced to leave-because, either that must happen, or we must reduce our standard of living to that of the Japanese-I say we should close the door.
For these reasons I most heartily endorse the principle of the measure the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has introduced.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, probably it is not necessary to add much to what has been said in support of the measure. Perhaps it is desirable that we should not go much farther in the matter at this time. We do not know yet what action the government proposes to take with regard to the bill. But it should always be remembered-I think it has always been noted in the house-that hon. members from British Columbia have been a sort of listening post for the rest of Canada on this oriental question.
If hon. members would care to take the trouble to look back through -the volumes of Hansard they would find that the burden of the debates which have taken place in years past has to a great extent been borne by members from British Columbia. This is but natural, for it is in that province almost entirely that the question is driven home, time and time again, as to whether the time has come-indeed, if it has not passed-when Canada should say who should enter her ports of entry.
We must remember the delegation of four young Japanese who, two years ago, appeared before the special committee on the elections act, and I well remember the impression those four young people made on members of the committee other than those from British Columbia. I remember also how it was the duty of certain British Columbia members of that committee to draw to its attention certain facts on the opposite side of this question, and I need hardly say that the 51952-364
members from other parts of Canada were very much enlightened when they heard of what had been happening, the situation that had been growing up in British Columbia for the past generation. During the existence in the early days of this century of the Anglo-Japanese agreement, come to by the British government, I think, in the middle nineties, Canada's position was nothing like so clear as it has been since the amendment of that agreement. I do not know whether the Canadian government of that day was consulted by the British government or not, but Canada did find her hands to an extent tied by the existence of that agreement. That agreement was modified; Canada's hands were untied, and in my opinion for several years past it has been open for Canada to say to whom we should open our ports of entry.
Reference has been made to the fact that perhaps at the basis of this whole matter is the question of assimilability, and I think the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) is greatly to be commended for the delicate way in which he handled his reference to assimilability. We do not want on this occasion, or on any occasion, to speak words in the house which could in any way be taken as an affront by another country, one with whom we have been on friendly terms, one from whom we desire to buy and to whom we desire to sell those commodities which are mutually beneficial to both countries. We desire, therefore, to handle this matter as best it may be handled, remembering at the same time that we owe a debt not only to the people who were instrumental in placing us individually in this house but to all the citizens of Canada, and most particularly that we owe a debt to those who are not yet born in this country.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a very few words in connection with this matter. As has been already pointed out by members from British Columbia, the matter of oriental immigration into that province not only is one of considerable importance to British Columbia but eventually will be of importance to the whole of this dominion. The oriental problem has given me much concern over quite a number of years because it has never been faced honestly and squarely in this dominion. It has been made a political football on every possible occasion. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) says that it is a little too late to close the gate. The gate should never have been opened. Greed for cheap labour brought the oriental to British Columbia, and greed for trade has kept him coming in.
Japanese Immigration

While I am in agreement with the bill brought before the house by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), I must say that the circumstances in which the bill is now brought before us are no better than they were two years ago when I raised the question here, and when my motion was unanimously voted down by both the major parties in the house. It is not often that one is vindicated so soon. On that occasion the hon. member for Comox-Alberni accused me of dishonesty in bringing the matter forward. Let me read his closing words in speaking to my resolution at that time. They will be found at page 387 of Hansard of February 20, 1936:
We have to take into consideration international and world-wide conditions to which the Prime Minister referred, and for that reason I acquiesced in the reduced immigration which, I say, is a great improvement on the open door policy arising from the gentleman's agreement which existed previously, and under which as many as 1,700 in one year came in. Although I know it would be popular in British Columbia that we upset the present agreement, I am not asking that we do so. I would ask that it be rigidly adhered to and enforced and, for the reasons stated, not enlarged. I earnestly hope the house will turn down the resolution.


Alan Webster Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, will the hon. gentleman read the resolution, so that we may know what he was talking about?


Angus MacInnis: Yes; if the hon. gentleman says he wants the resolution read, I probably shall have time to read it. The resolution asked for the exclusion from Canada of people of all nationalities to whom, because of race or religious beliefs, we cannot extend the full privileges of citizenship.


Alan Webster Neill: Read it.


Angus MacInnis: If the hon. gentleman will turn it up for me, I shall be glad to read it.


Alan Webster Neill: He is afraid to read it.


Angus MacInnis: Oh, I am not afraid to [DOT]ead it. I have stated its subject matter quite clearly.
I have said, Mr. Speaker, that I was in agreement with the principle involved in the bill; but I realize that a,t the present time there are great difficulties, and those difficulties will have to be got over in some way. I am afraid, however, we cannot overcome them just by the introduction of a bill at the present time. But I wish to say that any measures adopted by the government to put an end to oriental immigration will have my support and approval.


Mr. J. S. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, what I shall say about this question will be said in a very few words. If we will not grant the fullest rights of citizenship to a people, we should not permit them to root themselves in our land among our people and in our economic living. If these people will not or cannot assimilate with our Canadian people, then by that very fact they cannot be permitted peacefully or otherwise to take from us that which is ours.
We citizens of Canada should be permitted to avow allegiance to only one country, and no individual in Canada should be permitted to be and act as a Canadian who avows allegiance to more than one nation. He must forsake the one and cleave to the other, and be definite in that to which he allies himself. If gentleman's agreements are made-and, Mr. Speaker, there are such human beings as gentlemen-then, being made by gentlemen, those agreements should be kept. If the agreements are broken it appears that they were not made entirely by gentlemen, and if there is anything wrong with any agreement which permits an introduction of Japanese into our country, that agreement should be changed. So I feel that I must definitely support the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), although I question that the government can do more than take the attitude of the house under counsel and advisement.
Japan is a feudal country, amazingly enj lightened by the industrial progress created in the British Isles in the nineteenth century, and sealed to every other country in the world. Bushido, the spirit of Japan, is a feudal spirit, and we cannot deal with the Japanese as we deal with our own people. Great men and great women there are among them, with amazing minds and fine intellects; but the measuring rod for us in our Canadian citizenship and all that it implies must definitely be applied to them, and if we cannot determine their acceptability by that measuring rod we must not allow them to use the Japanese rod on our Canadian backs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the fact that the leader of the government may desire to make some observations on the question of policy, I think it desirable that I should present at this moment such remarks as I desire to make. First of all, I congratulate the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) upon the instructive speech that he made in proposing the second reading of this measure. I think that no member of the chamber can do otherwise than realize that

Japanese Immigration
the whole situation has been very thoroughly and carefully canvassed and that all the relevant features of what has taken place have been clearly placed before the house. I think it well also that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), who has very strong views on the subject, has dealt with the situation with great moderation.
I well recall when I first had the oriental question, so-called, brought to my attention. It is now between thirty-five and forty years since that took place. I was then engaged professionally in business that took me frequently to the coast, and one of the members of a provincial government, who subsequently sat in this house and is now in the senate- the uncle of the hon. member for Vancouver South-directed my attention to what he conceived to be the serious situation which would arise in Canada if the immigration of orientals continued and their numbers increased as rapidly as promised. I am frank in saying that it did seem to me to be ridiculous to think that a few hundred people might thus embarrass the national life of Canada.
A few years later I took the trouble to investigate what was taking place in a particular school area in the city of Vancouver. I also had occasion during the last ten years to make a fairly close study of what was occurring on the Pacific coast, in shipping and other activities of a certain portion of our oriental population, and I realized then that the hon. gentleman who spoke to me so many years ago was absolutely correct in his diagnosis. As regards the information that has been given to the house this afternoon and evening, dealing with the question of numbers, the method by which they came to our country, and their increase, these are all matters which I am sure the house has received with very serious concern, because, as it now appears, they are matters of tremendous importance.
I could add something to that; but in view of the fact that very special conditions prevail at the moment in China and Japan, it is not desirable that 'anything should be said in this Chamber which would give cause for acrimonious references or for either party to the conflict to believe that we were taking a position which was actuated by prejudice. It is quite clear, however, that in British Columbia a very serious situation is arising, and it may manifest itself in strange ways, unless we are exceedingly careful, within the next few months. The men with whom I have come in contact in recent weeks and months lead me to believe that their patience
is well-nigh exhausted. I appeal to some of my friends opposite if that is not a fair and correct statement of the situation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not for a moment have it thought that I desire to exaggerate by a hairbreadth so serious a matter, but I think I have not stated it too strongly in the terms which I have used.
That being so, I realize of course the difficulties of the government in dealing with the matter. I realize the difficulties, for instance, that I would have if I were called upon to deal with a situation that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has to deal with at this moment. Why? Because we are endeavouring to maintain, shall I say a measure of neutrality in a great conflict that has aroused the passions and prejudices of many people in many parts of the world. This is certainly not the time nor is it the place to discuss What I conceive to be the well settled national policy of the empire of Japan.
I quite agree with what was said this evening by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that China must one day "come back." I care not who you are; if you have taken the trouble bo read something of the history of Chinese civilization; if you have read the Life of General Gordon as it applied to his experience in China, you cannot but realize that they are a very great people, a people numbering four hundred millions, Whose ancestors, a warlike race, swept over the whole of the country south of Manchuria and conquered wherever they went. These people, four hundred millions in number, will come back. At the moment they are, although not mortally stricken, engaged in a desperate conflict with one of the most highly mechanized and powerful nations in the world.
I repeat that it would be out of place to discuss what I conceive to be the national ambition of the Japanese empire. They have made it known to us at miany times and in definite terms; they have not been hesitant in expressing their views of what they believed their mission was, and their destiny, and they have indicated clearly on more than one occasion what they believe to be their place in Asia.
This is not the time to discuss the matter, but one may point out that this great dominion of ours marches upon the Pacific ocean. Our coastline on the Pacific is long; it is all in the province of British Columbia. Although I had intended to refer to the matter, I think perhaps I should not make any reference to what my investigations, such as
Japanese Immigration

they are, lead me to conclude to be the facts as to the knowledge that these people possess of our coastline, our ports, our harbours and our resources in British Columbia. I shall refrain from making that reference.
Now, as the government has endeavoured to maintain neutrality, my friend the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) has pointed out that our hands were tied in days gone by; for the action of the British government -I believe it was in the days of Lord Lans-downe at the Foreign Office-did not leave us that measure of freedom of action which we now possess and which we have possessed for some years. As we now possess that freedom of action and that ability to deal with the situation in its entirety, that ability which an autonomous people should possess, I think in our effort to maintain neutrality we should be fair to both the Chinese and the Japanese; and as we have placed absolute restrictions upon the Chinese, apart from the limited exceptions which have been referred to to-dav, and which really are no exceptions to the general prohibition, I think we should take similar action with respect to the Japanese.
I am wholly in accord with this measure; I do not believe that we should play favourites in this matter. On the other hand, an immediate action of that kind could only be construed in one way, having regard to the unfortunate conditions which prevail in the orient, and therefore I say to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that as a member of this house, with a certain measure of responsibility and knowing something of the great burden of obligation that rests upon a government at a time like this in endeavouring to observe neutrality, I could not vote for a measure which did not restrict the operation of the act until such time as it came into force by proclamation. In any event I believe it would be. necessary to provide that the act should not come into force until proclaimed. It well might be that for reasons which are apparent it would be desirable, perhaps, rather than have the act come into force by proclamation, to fix a date a year hence, say, or whatever time might be regarded as reasonable, in order to enable the government to make such adjustments as might be decided upon through representations to the Japanese government and through negotiations carried on through diplomatic channels.
But, that action should be taken, I am bound to say to the right hon. the Prime

Minister I have no doubt. I say that with some hesitancy, because, when the matter was first brought to my attention some thirty-five years ago. I was of the view that a great people such as this nation, living in a vast area such as Canada, need have no concern about a few hundred people from the orient. I have stated already that I have had to change my opinion in the light of what has occurred. Indeed, I care not who you are; you cannot visit the Pacific coast of Canada; you cannot go up that coast as I have done in a boat and see the fishing operations, coming in contact and talking with those who have settled in our country and have attended our schools, without arriving at a definite conclusion. I suggest to the government, with a full realization of their difficulties and responsibilities, that we should not hesitate to declare ourselves as determined to maintain the same measure of treatment, now that we are free to do so, to those who come to our land from Japan as to those who come from China. This will make for peace; it will make for a better understanding, and in the end it will make for the development of our Canadian civilization. I am satisfied that that is so.
I think it would be unwise, Mr. Speaker, for one to say what crowds in upon one's mind with respect to this matter. I am not unmindful of exactly what is involved, and I shall content myself therefore with saying that with the principle of this measure I am wholly in accord. It is necessary if we are to maintain our neutrality between the great ancient empire of China, now in so sad a situation, and the young and vigorous empire of Japan-young in its present manifestations. If we are to maintain that measure of neutrality which the government is anxious to preserve, and if we are to assist in bringing about lasting peace by the action we take, I cannot but think that we must treat both the Chinese and the Japanese on exactly the same terms. If I remember my history, the more ancient civilization is that of China. It has behind it a record of achievement in arms, in arts, and in culture that leaves most of our western civilization somewhat envious. I believe that we must do what I have suggested if we are to maintain an even balance, a neutrality between those two countries.
On the other hand, not for a moment would I pass the bill in its present form. Without placing a time limit as to when it should come into force, or providing that it should become effective by proclamation, I think we would be courting a very serious situation indeed, and one which we could not contemplate at this particular moment, having

Japanese Immigration
regard to our earnest desire to keep our own country out of the conflict in Asia. I entreat the government to realize how serious the situation is, and I think I can say to the Prime Minister that his Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) has a clear appreciation of it. Having come into this country from the old land, without any inherited prejudices or any feeling of animosity in the matter, he has seen conditions as they have developed under his very eyes; his conclusions, I have no doubt, have been communicated to the Prime Minister in council and otherwise, and I believe that if his views are as unchangeable in tnis regard as they are upon the monetary problem, he will still feel, as he has expressed himself in times past, wholly in accord with the views which have been put forward this evening.
I repeat, however, that I would not for a moment suggest to the Prime Minister that the government should permit the bill to be enacted and go into force just as it stands, as a peremptory prohibition, without some provision which would enable the government for a year at least, through diplomatic channels and otherwise, to convey to the people of Japan the will of the parliament of Canada, that the gentleman's agreement, so-called, could no longer be made effective. If I were to say what was in my mind with respect to the gentleman's agreement, I think I would but read the report of the League of Nations and the Lytton report as indicating just why I would no longer call it a gentleman's agreement. I do not think I am going too far when I make that observation, though I shall not go further lest it be said that one has stirred up acrimonious feelings in a matter of this kind. I believe, however, now that we are free, as compared with our position in days gone by, to deal with this matter, that we should not hesitate to do so, because it is obvious that to permit a foreign power to determine who should come into this country under the terms of an alleged gentleman's agreement is a violation of all the rules which govern the national life of a country that pretends to be a nation, and is at variance with what I conceive to be the Japanese notion of a. self-respecting and independent thinking people, namely the Canadian people. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have indicated the trend of my own thought and the conclusion my own observation has led me to with respect to this matter. I have endeavoured to make it clear to my fellow members that I conceive it to be a matter no longer concerning British Columbia only, but one which touches the life and hope and ambition and ideals of the whole Canadian people, and that the
longer action upon it is delayed the more difficult its ultimate solution is going to become.
One of the reasons why one hesitates to press for an immediate solution is to be found in the fact that events taking place in Asia would render it open possibly-possibly I say-to a wrong construction, and might place us in an invidious position in the eyes of the peoples of the world in our alleged endeavour to maintain neutrality. Therefore, while I should like to commend the hon. member who introduced the measure to the house, and hope that the government are prepared to accept the principle of it, I am one of those who, accepting that measure and believing strongly in it, would not for a moment urge its passing in its present form, as I believe it would be a very dangerous thing for us to do at this time. But I believe that we should pass it and add to it a section by which it would be provided that the measure should become effective only-I should think we might well say-on the first day of July, 1939. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi may think I am taking a great liberty with him when I make that suggestion, but I think the reasons for it will occur to him at once. 1 trust that in order that the whole Canadian people may be a unit in dealing with this question we may place ourselves on record in the manner indicated, and not embarrass the government in their endeavours to maintain neutrality by providing a lengthy period of time within which our friends-our friends I say-the people of Japan, may understand that the end of our patience has been reached and that we no longer desire to maintain an agreement which is predicated upon false principles and in its application has been found to be an incentive-I shall not use the strong word I should like to use-to entry into this country of large numbers of their citizens.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like, Mr. Speaker, my first word on this measure to be one of thanks to the hon. members of the house who have participated in the debate for the moderation of tone which they have shown throughout in discussing a question which they recognize is of much wider concern than to our own country alone. I should like particularly to thank the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) for having helped to interpret to the house the position of the government in dealing with this situation at this time. I say frankly that I know of no single measure which has appeared on the order paper thus far, or of anything that is likely to come up for discussion in this parlia-
Japanese Immigration

ment, that has caused my colleagues and myself personally the same great concern as has the appearance at this particular time of the measure introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). He himself has made quite clear in the debate this afternoon that the measure which he has presented is one of Japanese exclusion. I wish to emphasize that fact. The bill which we have before us at the present time, innocent as it may appear in its phraseology, and limited in its scope as the hon. member who introduced it has said it is, is nevertheless, according to his own statement, one of Japanese exclusion. That raises a question which is serious indeed. I would ask the house to consider whether in the light of the situation as we know it to-day, not only in the orient but throughout the world, it is advisable for this parliament at this time to enact an exclusion act against the Japanese.
The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) in the course of his remarks said that he thought we should speak no words that can be taken as an affront to another country. With that sentiment I think we are all most heartily in accord. I think the house and the country are to be congratulated upon the fact that in the debate which has taken place today, in which hon. members have had perfect freedom to express their views, there has not been, unless one might wish to be censorious, a word spoken that could be taken as an affront by any nation. That is a very great relief to my own mind, knowing the responsibility which rests upon a government as to what may be said or done with respect to the different measures that come before the house. I remember in the debate on the address expressing the hope that hon. members would realize how very grave the international situation is to-day, and that things would not be said in this house which, however well they might be understood here, might be capable of being wrongly interpreted elsewhere, and that above everything we should be most :areful at this time to avoid adding any fuel o the flames of international strife which are iready far too widespread throughout the world. It is in questions of this kind that racial hatreds and prejudice have their roots. They serve so often to start a train of discussion that arouses or fosters international bitterness and hatred which lead in directions and to consequences of which those who may be responsible for them at the beginning have no conception whatever. So, to-day, in considering the position the government should take on this measure, up until almost the last moment I asked myself whether it 
would not perhaps be in the interests of Canada

and when I speak of the interests of Canada in this matter let me say I am thinking of the interests of the entire British Empire and of the democracies of the world at the present time-whether it would not be perhaps in the interest of us all that I should immediately follow the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and point out frankly to the house how a measure that meant Japanese exclusion if proceeded with at this time might be viewed on the morrow in Japan and by countries associated with Japan, and ask the house to allow me to move the adjournment of the debate. But the more I considered it the more I felt certain that hon. members would have a full consciousness of the seriousness of the international situation and could be expected to do just what they have done, namely, speak their minds quite frankly with respect to the problem, treating it as a national problem, which it is, but being careful in the expression of their views not to say anything which might foe capable of being misunderstood elsewhere.
I agree entirely that this is not a problem of British Columbia alone. Those of us who come from the other provinces of Canada must have an intense sympathy with the citizens of British Columbia who have had to carry pretty much the whole burden of one of the greatest national problems with which our country is faced. It is a grave and acute problem, and is presented in its gravest and most acute form in British Columbia. I would say to our friends from British Columbia that I am sure hon. members from all parts of Canada realize that they have a very grave situation to meet there, and that we all are most anxious to join with them in every possible way in furthering its solution. But we believe that they, as well as those of us from other provinces, will recognize that we have to be more than circumspect at this time as to the manner in which we seek to arrive at a solution.
My right hon. friend has spoken about his first interest in the question of oriental immigration, and referred to it as having been some forty years ago. I have on my desk at the moment a report on immigration to Canada from the orient and immigration from India in particular which, as Deputy Minister of Labour, I prepared for the government of Canada in 1908. My interest in the oriental immigration question arose naturally and inevitably in connection with the position which I held as Deputy Minister of Labour from 1900 until 1908, and also during the years

Japanese Immigration
immediately following when I was Minister of Labour. In the course of those inquiries I had the exceptional opportunity while visiting Great Britain of conferring with many of those who had most to do with oriental problems, and particularly problems of emigration as they affected India. Later I was sent on a mission to confer with the government of India on the question of emigration from India to Canada. Subsequently I went to both China and Japan to discuss with the governments of those countries matters affecting emigration from those lands to Canada. From that time to the present I have followed this question as carefully and as closely, I think, as any question that has interested me in public life. I have realized, as everyone must who looks at world trends and movements to-day, that despite what any government may do, each year makes more inevitable the drawing nigh of the day when we shall see how the great question of differences between the peoples of the orient and those of the Occident are to be finally settled, whether it is going to be possible to settle these differences by peaceful means, or whether we are to have in the end more in the way of international conflict as the only means of settlement.
I personally believe that everything which can be done that may avoid conflict, should be done. I think in the attempted solution of these great international problems, we should do everything we can to avoid the possibility of conflict, and it is from that point of view that the government takes its position with regard to this particular measure.
The hon. member for Comox-Albemi, as I have said, stated that the bill he had introduced was one providing for Japanese exclusion. He put it on the ground that we had excluded the Chinese and that therefore we ought also to exclude the Japanese. May I say that I agree with the view expressed by the right hon. leader of the opposition, which I think is the view of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi and, I might say, of all hon. members here, that so far as China and Japan are concerned, the citizens of those countries deserve like treatment in matters of this kind. I do not think there is any reason why the one people should be favoured more than the other. Indeed I would go further and say this, that all that bears upon the question of immigration from Japan or China also bears upon the question of immigration from India to Canada, with this in addition, that the problem as respects immigration from India is complicated still further by the fact that the natives of India are British subjects. So, in
considering this question, we must view it in the light of its bearings upon all the oriental peoples.
My belief is that the question of oriental immigration is best settled by agreement, if it can possibly be settled in that way, rather than by exclusion acts, which are offensive in the eyes of oriental peoples. There is no single measure, I think, more likely to arouse the indignation of a people than that an act, which is avowedly an exclusion act, should be enacted against them by another country. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni says, " Well, the Chinese do not take any exception to this. They seem to be quite satisfied." May I say to my hon. friend that he is entirely wrong in that assumption. The Chinese government and the Chinese people have resented very much the fact that they are totally excluded from Canada, and they have made representations to the government time and again to that effect. I remember that the former Chinese consul general in this city-notwithstanding a consul general has not the rank of a minister and therefore has not the same immediate approach to a government to speak in the name of his nation-when we were previously in office, repeatedly came and spoke about the wrong that China felt was being done her because of the act that had been passed by this parliament. When I was at the League of Nations in 1936, Mr. Wellington Koo, who has been the chief exponent of China in the trying times with which that country is faced at the moment, spoke to me very strongly about the harm that he thought our legislation was doing Canada in the eyes of the Chinese. He pointed out that he thought China might be one of the best markets for Canadian wheat; he thought China might be a good market for much of our other produce; that China had many reasons to have kindly feelings towards the dominion, but that to his certain knowledge the act we had passed had been to the prejudice of our trade with that country.


Alan Webster Neill: Was not the fundamental reason for their objection the discrimination that we exercise in allowing Japanese into the country and not allowing Chinese to come in?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, that was not it. I am glad my hon. friend has asked the question, for while that was mentioned, it was not the principal reason.
The question arises immediately as to whether the way to remedy a situation, if you have done an injustice in one direction, is to seek to perpetuate that injustice still further by similar action in another direction. I am
Japanese Immigration

not saying that we have done an injustice; I am simply stating the view which the Chinese government take of the situation, in having their nationals excluded from this country. I am not at all sure that an agreement might not be reached with both China and Japan on a reciprocal basis which would lead practically to no emigration at all from those countries to Canada or from ours to China or Japan. I do not think there are many people in Canada who in the yeans to come will wish to go as labourers or domestics either to China or Japan. I am sure, however, there will be many Who will wish to go as merchants, and others who would wish to go for purposes of trade. I believe the people of the orient are just as wise as we are in realizing that there is a great economic question here Which is bound to occasion perpetual misunderstanding between countries unless it is adjusted in some reasonable way, and I feel that if approached in the right manner they will be prepared to meet other countries in a spirit which will help to save the situation.
The problem is not one of inferior or superior races. It is not a racial problem at all. The problem is one of different civilizations, of different economic structures in the different countries. As long as there are those differences there is bound to be unrest as a consequence of immigration which leads to unfair and undue competition on the part of those who have lower standards of living and who may not assume the same measure of responsibility with regard to their citizenship as do the citizens of the country to which they come. I think it is from that broad point of view, that this question must be faced.
I do not agree with the statement that what is known as a gentleman's agreement cannot be kept. I shall give to the house figures which prove that in the last few years the gentleman's agreement between Canada and Japan has been kept. I venture to say that under no exclusion act would it be possible more effectively to restrict those coming into the country than has been the case under this arrangement, as administered *n the last few years, ever since, in fact, the opening of our legation in Japan.
Regardless of what legislation or agreement exists, undoubtedly there will always be efforts to smuggle men into other countries. That effort would go on under an exclusion act just as much as it would under a gentleman's agreement fixing numbers at a very few.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is more difficulty about identification.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, no difficulty about identification, either, due to the way in which the existing agreement is being carried out. I shall have a word to say about that in a minute.
I am now pointing out that an agreement, supported by effective regulations, is just as capable of efficient enforcement as is any exclusion act. The experience of the last few years has taught us that conclusively.
I should like to say a further word about the Chinese attitude toward the present legislation. May I tell the hon. member for Comox-Alberni what has occurred since the beginning of this very year. When the new Chinese Consul-General, Doctor Chang-Lok Chen, who has just come to Canada, arrived in Ottawa, he came to call on me at my office, shortly after his arrival. Like many of his fellow citizens, Doctor Chang-Lok Chen is an exceptionally well informed and cultured gentleman. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago and of Yale University and holds the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. He acted as Consul-General in Calcutta, was a Consul-General in the United States, and is now in our capital as a Consul-General of China in this country.
On his first call Doctor Chang-Lok Chen spoke about our legislation against China. He made no mention whatsoever as to its being discriminatory against China in comparison with Japan. Rather he spoke of the friendly relations which he would like to see further developed between China and Canada. What he actually said was that his government hoped that when the unfortunate conflict in the east was ended we might find it possible to do for China what we had already done for Japan, namely send a minister to China who would be in a position to meet the Chinese government in the discussion of matters of mutual interest to the two countries, and who could be of assistance in helping to further what he believed would be a very substantial trade between the two countries. He was explicit, however, in saying that this subject could not even be tentatively discussed at the present time, because he realized that so long as there was a conflict in the orient, such as is proceeding to-day, he could not ask the government to consider the advisability of taking the step he had indicated. He thought that would not be possible until the conflict was completely over.
I said the present agreement with Japan was one which had been effective in restricting immigration from Japan to Canada. Be-

Japanese Immigration
fore I conclude I shall read to the house the statement I made on June 28, 1928, with respect to the agreement reached at that time. I am not going into the history of what occurred during the past forty, thirty, twenty-five or twenty years to account for the thousands of Chinese and Japanese who came into the country during that period. All hon. members know the reason for the numbers. We recall that there were those who were seeking to develop the province of British Columbia and who believed the best way to do it was to bring labour from the orient, just as in the early days when the United States was being developed labourers were brought from Africa and from other countries to help develop the new territories and resources of that country.
To-day we are reaping the fruits of greed and avarice-if one wishes to use those terms to describe the desire of men to enrich themselves as rapidly as possible. That is only a consequence of the great law which rules the conduct of nations as well as that of individuals. The children pay for the sins of their fathers, and the extent to which we in Canada to-day are suffering from an excess in the numbers of orientals in our country is due to the fact that there was a period, not so long ago, when the country was prepared to believe that it was desirable to permit large numbers of a class of coolie labour to come into Canada to build our railways, work our mines and help develop other of our resources.
Since that period has passed, each government, as it has been in office, has sought to meet the situation as effectively as it could, in the light of the then existing conditions. There are many factors we are apt to lose sight of as the years go by. For example, in connection with this very matter of Japanese immigration, we do not think about what the Anglo-Japanese alliance meant some years ago, more particularly to other parts of the British Empire than to our own, nor what was then felt by the government of the day in Canada in recognition of a responsibility with respect to any step taken by Canada which might have ill effects in other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
I wish to point out particularly that any action taken by Canada which would occasion resentment by any country in the orient would be resented, not merely as a step on Canada's part, but with the relationship of all its parts what they are, as something to be resented against the whole British commonwealth. In the light of the present world
situation we cannot, whatever we do here, afford to lose sight of our obligation to other parts of the British Empire.
In seeking to deal with this matter of Japanese immigration it has been felt by all governments in Canada hitherto that a settlement by agreement, if it could be effected, was preferable to a step which was certain to be strongly resented. In his observations the hon. member for Yale made a further reference which I believe is worth keeping in mind. He referred to the obligation felt by hon. members from British Columbia toward those who returned them to this chamber. He referred as well to the obligation which all of us owe to those who will follow after us. I should like to emphasize that. In the working out of great international problems, nations do not forget the actions taken by one generation when, in a subsequent generation, a time comes to remember those actions.
I believe that acts of good-will and good intent are remembered equally with those which have occasioned resentment. If we can preserve good-will with other countries, and at the same time effect a satisfactory solution of our problems, we are not only serving our own generation, but serving future generations, and doing so in a much better way than we would by any other course.
My statement in 1928 was the following-


Alan Webster Neill: What date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is to be
found in the debates of this house for June 8, 1928, page 3980:
I am pleased to he able to inform the house that following conferences with the Japanese government, in which the Canadian government made clear the difficulties created in western Canada by the economic competition of Japanese immigrants, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs has informed us through the Consul-General of Japan at Ottawa, that the government of Japan does not contemplate that the total number of emigrants to Canada, including agricultural labourers and domestic servants, and wives and children of Japanese emigrants resident in Canada, will exceed a total of 150 annually. We have further been informed that steps will be taken to terminate the practice of sending for so-called "picture brides." The administrative measures directed to this end will go into force on September 1.
The Canadian government has indicated to the government of Japan that hereafter in the case of immigration from Japan, as from other countries, the Immigration Act and procedure, including the provisions for viseing of passports and pre-investigation of applications will be administered by Canadian officials.
That was the position in 1928. The question that is most important at the moment is:
Japanese Immigration

Has the agreement been lived up to? I can say to the house that it has been more than lived up to; that instead of the government having had difficulty in restricting I he numbers to 150, the numbers have not by actual check and count reached 150 per annum since the agreement was made. Since we have had our legation in Japan, each passport has been visaed by our own officers and inspected by our own immigration officials as these nationals of Japan have arrived in Canada. Let me give the figures. The administrative arrangements under the agreement did not come fully into practice until April 1, 1930, though the substance of the agreement became effective from September 1>, 1928. The total Japanese immigration under the agreement has been as follows:
Japanese Immigration Under Agreement
Fiscal Year	Total
1929-	30	
1351930-	31	
1281931-	32	
1351932-	33	
941933-	34	
991934-	35	
741935-	36	
681936-	37	
80
It will thus be seen that the number of Japanese immigrants entering Canada has been well within the maximum provided in the agreement. Tor the eight years from 1929 to 1937 the average is practically 100 a year, and for the past five years the average number has fallen to 81 a year.
Now I ask hon. members of the house, What is to be gained by passing an exclusion act at this time when, under an agreement made with Japan, the government of this country is bound to admit, and is glad to admit, that during the past five years the total number of Japanese who have come in under that agreement has not averaged over 81 per annum ?


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Prime Minister a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Howard Charles Green: How does the Prime Minister account for the discrepancy between the figures he has given and the figures shown in the report of the Department of Mines and Resources, at pages 242 and 243? The figures there are quite different and show that in three or four years the gentleman's agreement was not kept.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad the hon. gentleman has asked the question, because he is not distinguishing between Japanese nationals admissible under the agree-
ment, and Japanese who are admissible as British subjects. The figures he is looking at, if I am not mistaken, include not only those who have come in under the agreement but in addition some who have come in as of right, a right which they would have under an exclusion act, namely, as British subjects. They include Japanese British subjects who have been abroad and have come back to Canada, or have gone abroad and married and have brought their wives back to Canada, or have had a family and brought its members back to Canada. That is a right which every Canadian citizen has. When a man is a Canadian citizen he has the right, even if he does not take advantage of it, to have a wife and family and to bring them in from any country. It is in the exercise of that right that some of these Japanese have come back, thereby increasing the total. I was just going to give those additional figures to the house.


Howard Charles Green: I think it was stated in the terms of the agreement which the right hon. the Prime Minister quoted a few minutes ago that the 150 would include the wives of Japanese who went from Canada as naturalized subjects, married abroad and brought their wives back.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I did not make any reference to them. What I said was this:
The government of Japan does not contemplate that the total number of emigrants to Canada, including agricultural labourers and domestic servants, and wives and children of Japanese emigrants, resident in Canada, will exceed a total of 150 annually.


Howard Charles Green: Surely that third classification covers just these cases-Canadian Japanese who went back to Japan.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. If a
Japanese comes to this country who is not already a citizen, and brings his wife with him, she in addition to himself is counted as one of the quota of 150. If he comes back with a wife and five children, six additional of the quota have been taken up: the wife and children, with himself, making seven in all. Counted in that way the total quota has not been reached, and the figures I have given are the correct ones.


Howard Charles Green: Actually the immigrants who have come in for several years have exceeded the number of 150, have they not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am coming to just what the number was. Let me make it perfectly clear that the agreement relates to Japanese nationals coming to Canada, whether they be men, women or children, and

Japanese Immigration
the quota cannot exceed 150, and it has not exceeded 100 on the average in the years the agreement has been in force. The average for the last five years has been about eighty-one.
Of the other group, those who are British subjects, who have been back in Japan for a time and have returned to Canada and brought with them wives and children, there have been a certain number, but the addition is not anything like the hon. member for Comox-Albemi would have the house believe. I shall give the house the exact particulars.
There are a limited number of Canadian nationals of the Japanese race entering Canada each year. These are, of course, completely outside the agreement. For the most part they are wives or children of Canadian nationals who returned to Japan and married, and later have come back to Canada. The number in the past eight years averages twenty-five women and fewer than ten children a year. In the past five years only fourteen women and three children a year have come in.
The complete total of immigration from Japan is to be found in the figures I have given, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that if there are any others outside that number who have come in, they have come in surreptitiously and illegally, and they could and, in all probability, would come in in exactly the same way, though perhaps in larger numbers, if there was an exclusion act.
In the light of these figures, which cannot be challenged, for they are authentic, as recorded by our own government officials who have been watching the whole business very closely, I ask hon. members, Is it desirable at this time to go further and pass an act which will totally exclude the Japanese? What would be the effect of passing such an act? We have one instance of record which might help us to discover what would be the result. The United States Government in 1924 passed an act. They did not call it an exclusion act, but it came to that, and the minute that act was passed an international situation developed which was a very, very serious one indeed, one the like of which I think none of us would care to see precipitated at this particular time. Let me give the house the particulars because they illustrate exactly what would inevitably follow from the course which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has suggested, were it adopted as his bill proposes.
The United States law of 1924 took the form of an amendment excluding "aliens ineligible to citizenship." Under existing statutes, citizenship of the United States was confined to persons bom in the United States, regardless of race, and to naturalized persons,
naturalization being limited to "free white persons and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent." While aimed at the Japanese, it applied to all Asiatics. According to the Japan Chronicle, an English paper published in Kobe:
No diplomatic event for many years aroused so much comment and excitement as the passage of the exclusion law in the United States.
Resolutions of both houses of the Japanese diet, public demonstrations, newspaper articles, missionary societies, all protested vigorously.
If that was the case in 1924 upon the enactment of an act by a great country like the United States, I wonder what would be the effect in Japan to-morrow if it were announced that one of the British dominions-and it would not be distinguished at all from the British Empire as a whole-had taken this particular measure.
May I pause here to say that one of the most regrettable features of the international situation to-day is that there are busily at work in Japan at the present time numbers of persons who are doing all they possibly can to foment differences between Japan and Great Britain. That is generally known. The British government in its reports has referred over and over again to that fact. It has endeavoured to have the public distinguish between what is the true feeling and the feeling that is being stirred up for ends that are anything but justifiable or worthy. That is the situation to-day. We must remember also that in every country to-d'ay which is engaged in conflict there is a peace party as well as a war party. It so happens that in some countries the war party has gained control. That is the situation in Japan; and the party in control has taken measures with which, unquestionably, a large number of the people have no sympathy. There are those in Japan who are struggling to maintain the friendship which has existed over so many years between the British and the Japanese, and I say that we, as one of the dominions of the British commonwealth, ought to do, and I believe will do, all that we can to preserve that friendship to the greatest degree possible, and certainly we ought to do nothing to increase the emnity that is being fostered.
I have in my hand a copy of a treatise on Oriental Exclusion, by Mr. R. D. McKenzie Ph. D., professor of sociology in the University of Washington. Let me read a paragraph or two of what is said in that publication about the effect upon the Japanese, and the Chinese of the United States act of 1924. At page 42 the writer says:
To the Chinese the act of 1924 was but another form of persecution and "gratuitous affront" added to a condition that was already severe enough.
Japanese Immigration

At page 45:
To the Japanese, the passing of the law came as a bolt from the blue, at once a suggestion of lack of national good faith in carrying out the gentlemen's agreement, and a reflection on national pride and racial dignity. The Japanese opposed the act during the period of its inception and still oppose it on political rather than on practical grounds.
Then he quotes what is an extremely interesting and valuable dispatch, one which bears directly on the measure that is before us at the present time. It serves to illustrate what we might expect if the bill of the hon. member from Comox-Alberni were to be enacted. It is a communication from Ambassador Hanihara to Secretary Hughes of the United States dated April 10, 1924. This is what the Japanese ambassador had to say to the government of the United States:
To Japan the question is not one of expediency but of principle. To her the mere fact that a few hundreds or thousands of her nationals will or will not be admitted to the dominions of other countries is immaterial, so long as no question of national susceptibilities is involved. The important question is whether Japan as a nation is or is not entitled to the proper respect and consideration of other nations. In other words, the Japanese government asks of the United States government simply that proper consideration ordinarily given by one nation to the self-respect of another, which after all forms the basis of amicable international intercourse throughout the civilized world.
In concluding his volume, this writer, at page ISO, makes the following observation after a careful study of the whole situation:
Exclusion differs from restriction principally in the mental attitudes involved. The practical results of the two methods are about the same. Each limits the number of arrivals. Each presents about the same kind of individual and administrative problems. Exclusion, however, differs radically from restriction from the standpoint of group attitudes. Exclusion discriminates in a manner that is offensive to the racial and national dignity of the group excluded. This is especially true when exclusion is based on the principle of ineligibility to citizenship. For then it conveys the obnoxious implication that the people excluded are biologically inferior.
Both China and Japan, according to the repeated utterances of their representative leaders, accept the principle of immigration restriction. They realize that it is in the interests of all concerned to prevent a too rapid intermingling of the races. They do object, however, to being discriminated against on the basis of race when such discrimination is unnecessary to achieve the end desired. There seems to be no fundamental difference of opinion regarding the objective. The conflict arises in connection with the method employed. It has been pointed out on numerous occasions

that the quota principle, as at present applied to Europeans, if applied to Asiatics, would admit such a negligible number that the practical end of exclusion would be achieved and without the sacrifice of international good-will.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that these are words of wisdom, which should be carefully pondered at this time with respect to the course that is proposed in this bill.
My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said that he agrees that the bill should not become operative immediately but that a date should be fixed some time hence when it would come into force. May I ask the right hon. gentleman if he really believes that this would at all relieve the situation which would be certain to develop once parliament passed a measure of this kind. I come back to what the hon. member for Yale said, that he hoped no words would be uttered in this house which would cause any affront to any nation. Well, if that is the hope of all of us here, must we not be doubly careful to see, not only that no words cause an affront but, what is much more important, that no act of the parliament of Canada causes an affront? That is the really serious thing. That is a consequence we have to consider with regard to this measure.
Other countries will understand that in our parliament as in all parliaments hon. members express themselves in different ways, some may say things which they themselves later on may come greatly to regret; and most countries fortunately are prepared to make allowances for that kind of thing. But when it comes to a parliament enacting a measure, there one nation speaks to another. I therefore submit that at this time, with the affairs of the world what they are, this parliament of Canada should not contemplate for one minute placing, an exclusion act upon its statutes, especially an act directed against Japan, where we have before us the evidence that, so far as Japan is concerned, she has been perfectly loyal to the agreement that now exists and has more than carried out its terms.
I know that at a time like the present, with feelings aroused as they have been by the conflict in the orient, passions are more easily stirred, people discuss these questions much more freely; they go much further in their language and assertions; reports become exaggerated, and little by little a new situation is created. And I am afraid it is only too true that in British Columbia at the present time there is an extremely serious situation arising from that very fact, and from the further fact that the depression has empha-

Copyright Amendment Act
sized the extent of the competition of the oriental with our own people. I would ask this question however:	Shall we be making
the situation any better so far as British Columbia is concerned if we take the course that is proposed here to-night? Would not the effect rather be, so far as British Columbia is concerned, that instead of being faced with one problem, which is very difficult, that province would be faced with a second problem which would be equally menacing if not more dangerous? We are finding it necessary now to take what steps we possibly can to ensure the security of the people of British Columbia. We must, therefore, be doubly careful to see that our actions give no cause for offence.
During the past few years and particularly of late the government has been investigating very carefully and fully the matter of surreptitious immigration into the country. As I have said, whether you have an exclusion act or you limit by agreement, there are bound to be efforts at entry on the part of those who wish to get into the country and who are not free to do so under existing arrangements. Those efforts may succeed in part; for although a country does its best in its administration of its laws, it is not possible entirely to frustrate such efforts. But the different departments of this government have been exercising a careful scrutiny of the whole situation, and in the light of recent developments, doing so to an extent that has not been attempted in the past. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) mentioned this evening that he himself had learned that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had discovered many cases of illegal entry and that some nine hundred persons had been sent out of the country in consequence. The officials of the immigration department, the fisheries department, the external affairs department, the mounted police, the intelligence branch of the defence department, have all been working together, at Ottawa, with respect to regulations, and in British Columbia in actually seeking to enforce the laws and regulations and to prevent aliens from coming into the country surreptitiously and to send out those who have come in illegally. They have been doing so of late to a degree that has never been attempted heretofore. We intend to intensify that investigation into illegal entries into Canada, and I wish to assure the house that everything that the government can possibly do to prevent anything in the nature of illegal entries will be done.
With that assurance, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have said enough to cause the house to feel
that I would be justified in moving the adjournment of this debate. I think it would be unfortunate were hon. members compelled, with the international situation what it is to go on record at this particular time with regard to this bill. A division would certainly serve only to place in a very false position many of those who are desirous of doing only what is best from a national and international point of view and who realize that the time has come when we must look at all controversial questions in the light of the present world situation. Their position would certainly be misunderstood. There are, I know, many who for local reasons would wish to support the measure, who for international reasons might well feel they could not. I hope they may be spared that necessity.
I would therefore move that this debate be now adjourned, and in doing so I hope the house will fully appreciate the motives which actuate the government in taking that step.


Alan Webster Neill: The motion is not debatable, Mr. Speaker?


The ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The * motion is not debatable. Mr. Mackenzie King moves, seconded by Mr. Dunning, that the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: Carried,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT, 1931   FURNISHING OF LIST OF DRAMATICO-MUSICAL OR MUSICAL WORKS OWNED OR CONTROLLED- PUBLIC RADIO RECEPTION OR GRAMOPHONE REPRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West) moved the second reading of Bill No. 12, to amend the Copyright Amendment Act, 1931.
He said: I desire to preface my remarks on this bill with the assurance to hon. members that it does not in any way prejudice the rights and privileges of authors or composers. It does not refer to literary copyrights; it refers only to dramatico-musical or musical works. Specifically the bill refers to the Canadian Performing Right Society, a corporation engaged in the business of acquiring copyrights and collecting fees in compensation for the use of music. This society claims to hold, by assignment, from the
Copyright Amendment Act
[Stage Direction]
American society and from English and European societies the copyright to between two and three million titles, but in reality it does not know just what it does own. It claims to own practically everything on the air, and with that assumption there has been no interference. The society has actually registered between 150,000 and 200,000 titles and the purpose of the amendment to the Copyright Act is to require the society to furnish to those from whom it exacts payment a certified list of the music which it actually does control.
Invariably when an amendment to the Copyright Act is suggested we are reminded Canada is a signatory to the Berne international copyright convention and that as such we have certain obligations. May I again assure hon. members that this bill does not in any way violate any such obligation. Successive international conventions have made it clear that the means of redress and the extent of protection of authors and composers are governed exclusively by the laws of the country in which protection is sought. Canada has an excellent Copyright Act. It affords to composers and authors as much protection as is afforded by the copyright act of any country in the world.
The purpose of this amendment is to protect the public. This bill is not offered in a spirit of partisanship, because the Copyright Act has been administered by governments of both parties. The great difficulty is in the wording of one section, which gives this society authority to collect fees for all the music which it claims to own. Now that is a pretty large order, because a man can claim almost anything. Not many hon. members pay out money to someone merely because he claims a right to collect it; they want to know more about it. It is this authority claimed by this society which has permitted it to run wild. It has run so wild, has carried on its business by such aggressive apd dictatorial and oppressive measures that it has harassed the small users of music. Surely it cannot be said that the proposal merely to require this society to furnish people with a list of the music it controls is a very great burden. If a person in British Columbia, say Prince Rupert, desires to know from this society whether it has the copyright on a certain piece of music the society simply tells him to go to Ottawa and ascertain for himself. That is not a very courteous answer. Those people far away cannot, without considerable difficulty, send to Ottawa or have people in Ottawa look up for them a copyright registration. I have printed matter showing that

if you write to the society asking whether they control this, that or the other piece of music the society maintains the right to charge for the information.
As to the exact ownership of these two or three million titles which the society claims, let us see whence it comes. In the first place there was an assignment from the American society. The American society is not in very good odour in the United States. If hon. members were to look at the magazine Time, the issue of December, 1935, they would find that four very large companies owning about forty per cent of the music controlled by the American society had withdrawn from that society and they did not return to the fold for nearly a year. Yet the Canadian society is collecting fees from Canadian citizens for music belonging to a company which had withdrawn from the American society. Therefore it is not a very dependable assignment. Furthermore, if you look to the United States, you find that the American society is in continuous trouble; that the states of Washington, Montana, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Florida have outlawed the society by legislation, and that some eighteen other states have passed legislation to curb its activities. In Canada we find that twice the Manitoba legislature has passed resolutions asking this government to curb the activities of this society. It is because of the society's oppressive tactics and because of complaints which I have from my own district that I think it advisable to refer to some of them.
Take first the fact that this society is capitalized with ten thousand shares of which only two are held in this dominion, the remainder being owned in the United States and England. The society is practically dictated to by the directors in New York. The society started collection of fees at a minimum of $10. There never was a maximum limit. Then the charges increased in accordance with certain conditions and the number of times music was produced. Then arbitrarily the society raised the minimum fee to $30. It was that increase and the many protests which resulted from it which brought about the appointment of His Honour Judge Parker as a royal commissioner to inquire into the matter. What did he find? Hon. members will see from his report that there were no Canadian authors having membership in the society, no Canadian authors or composers participating in its profits; that the funds collected were remitted to the United States after deducting only sufficient to carry the overhead. It was as a result of that report that the government appointed this appeal board to revise the society's tariff.

Copyright Amendment Act
That appeal board is to be commended, because had they not acted as they did we do not know what figure these fees would have reached. First there was a minimum of $10; then up it went to $30, then down to $5, a figure fixed by the appeal board. And where the society went out to collect $30 and could not get $30 they were willing to take $20, and if they could not get $20 they would take $10. I know of specific instances in my own community.
They also take advantage of the fact that the government through the appeal board revises their tariffs. They say to the people: This is our tariff as revised and approved by the government appeal board. The application forms also refer to their repertoire. It is an application to use the society's repertoire and the licence issued is a permission to use the society's repertoire. Well the society has no repertoires and never had. It does not know to-day what it owns. When they tell us through their paid lobbyists who have been patrolling the corridors of this building that it would be impossible to prepare a list, that a list would be so expensive, I do not think it is asking very much, because a list of the works this society owns would hardly make a book larger than the Montreal telephone directory.
The provision is that titles shall bear the date of the copyright, so that it may be readily seen when that copyright expires. Then, as occasion requires, additional leaves can be handed the licence holders in order that they may know what is the new music. As to the work which they contend the preparation of these lists will entail, I should like members to read some of the application forms and the printed matter of this society, in which they impose upon licence holders requirements which are absolutely incredible. First of all they ask the applicant to fill out his forms according to periods. That period may be for a week, for a month or for a quarter, and when he makes that application he undertakes to fill out a weekly, monthly or quarterly report. Then they require him to tell, first of all, whether the music is vocal or instrumental or mechanical. They want him to tell whether it is produced by a piano, a piccolo, a gramophone, a saxophone or a radio. They want him to tell the name of the author and the name of the arranger and he must tell just how many minutes, how many hours and how many days this music is performed.
Then they tell the applicant how to arrive at the basis of charges, and I am reciting this because it indicates the work which this corporation imposes upon applicants from whom it seeks to collect licence fees. Why, it requires one to tell first of all the title of the 51952-37
music and how many minutes that music has been played. Then it says that a certain charge is made to hotels, to restaurants, even to boarding houses, to cabarets, to skating rinks, to stores and all down the line in these places where small music is performed and where it was never intended that licence fees should be collected. They say the charges against these various places of business are to be calculated on the hour performance basis. The hours of performance are calculated, first of all, by multiplying the number of musicians, the greatest number of musicians, including the leader and soloist, in any one performance in any one hour of the time by the number of hours. Then you carry on a series of calculations and multiplication. You multiply that by the greatest number of days on which music is produced. Then you multiply the greatest number of days by the greatest number of weeks in any period. Then you multiply that by the rate of one and a half cents an hour, as they put it, and you must make your report accordingly. On that basis is fixed the rate that one must pay. Then, worse than that, if you fail to make that report the printed matter of the society tells you that the fees which you have already paid will revert to the company, and if you continue to use this music without having dbtained another licence you are said to be infringing the Copyright Act.
At a previous session I referred to this society as a racket. Well, it has had that designation from many sources. I said that it carried on its business by way of threats. Well, the president of the society took exception to that and threatened a libel suit. I looked up the dictionary and found that the best or rather the most charitable interpretation of the word "racket" was "a system of securing money to which one is not entitled." I think that applies very well to this society when it attempts to Collect fees for music of which it is not the owner. I also cited the case of the Eaton Amateur Dramatic Society, which sought to put on the Pirates of Penzance, and obtained a quoted price from the broadcasting station. They were told that they would have to get a quotation from the Canadian Performing Right Society, and they obtained a rate of $61. The broadcasting station thought that was so excessive that they turned the matter over to their solicitor, who found that the Pirates of Penzance was no longer copyright but was in the public domain, and that this society had no right whatever to collect fees on that work. That is just one incident, and I do not think it unreasonable a,t all to ask this society to supply to those from whom it seeks to collect fees a list of the music for which it demands payment.
[Stage Direction]
Copyright Amendment Act
[Stage Direction]
Another amendment to this act is in connection with the small users of radio music and, as I say, it is a matter in which every constituency in Canada is interested, since it affects every hotel, every dining room, restaurant, skating rink, store, lodge hall and so on. It was never intended that these people should be penalized by the collection of these fees. The amendment to this act simply says that these small places shall not pay for music which they receive over the radio. The appeal board was given a tariff at the end of November, with a request from this society that the various broadcasting stations pay to it for the year 1938 the sum of $145,000. The appeal board cut that sum down to $83,000, which was a pretty good cut. It just indicates that this society is rather reckless in its charges. But that $83,000 applies only to receiving sets for domestic purposes, in other words receiving sets in homes. Of this $83,000, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pays to this society the sum of $32,000. So the men having radios in these little places of business, having paid the government licence fee, feel it is not right that they should be called upon by this society to pay additional fees.
Those are the principal features of this bill, and I h'ope that hon. members will look upon it not as a party matter but simply as a means of serving their constituents by requiring this society to hand them a list of such music as they claim to control.
Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauhamois-Laprairie) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, having noticed certain abuses arising from the interpretation of the Copyright Act in matters of radiobroadcasting, I wish to point out to the house some of them which will indicate, I believe, the importance of passing, if not the two proposed amendments, at least the second one, which relates to licences required of owners of receiving sets. It might have been better to change the definition of the word "performance" in paragraph 2 of the act. However, the amendment contained in paragraph two of the present bill will remedy many abuses, and I am glad to support it.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) has already explained the methods of the Canadian Performing Right Society, which monopolizes copyrights and uses them not for the benefit of authors but for its own benefit and at the expense of the public. I shall merely point out the case of hotels, restaurants and clubs. In every village there is at least one hotel, restaurant and store which have one or more radio receiving sets used by the inmates or by visitors. The set is in operation the whole

day and even the entire evening, broadcasting the news of the day, sports news, hockey games, musical compositions, etc. Should there happen to be broadcast in the course of the day or evening a musical work or a song subject to copyright, the merchant, restaurant keeper or hotelkeeper whose receiving set was operating at that moment and who has not paid a copyright fee or obtained a licence becomes liable to an action in damages or a penalty of as much as $200, even although copyright fees had been paid by the station broadcasting the music or the song. Mark well, the hotelkeeper, merchant or restaurant keeper did not select the song or musical work, which indeed may annoy him; the choice is made by the broadcasting station. More than that, Mr. Chairman. Supposing that in the Royal Y'ork hotel in Toronto, for instance, the orchestra should broadcast a musical composition, the hotel has to pay a copyright or licence fee to the company holding the copyright. The station broadcasting the composition or song also has to pay a licence or copyright fee. And the small village hotelkeeper, merchant or restaurant owner who happened to leave his radio open during that time has likewise to pay a licence or copyright fee. Should he not do so he becomes liable to an action for damages or to a penalty of as much as $200.
A similar situation exists in the cities; in fact, I may say that it is even worse. Take the case of the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa. Should a musical work or a song be broadcast from there by a radio station, the hotel wrould have to pay a licence fee for having performed the composition; the station would have to pay a licence fee for broadcasting it, and the hotel would have to pay a third licence fee for any receiving set situated within its walls. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that that is pure exploitation and that it is time to put an end to it.
It is objected in certain quarters that the proposed act would constitute a contravention of the Berne international convention. The Berne international convention was concluded in 1886 and revised in Berlin in 1908. Surely this convention, signed in 1886 and revised in 1908, could have no relation to radiobroadcasting which at that time did not even exist. Broadcasting began in a practical way only in 1921 when the first licences were issued to stations in the United States. It has since developed in the different countries.
In 1927, at the second International Juridical Conference on wireless telegraphy held at Geneva, at which most of the countries of

Copyright Amendment Act
the civilized world were represented, there was submitted the following proposition: "Copyright fees are paj-able as well by all proprietors or operators of receiving sets in a public place." This proposition, Mr. Chairman, was rejected by seven votes against three, with three delegations not voting.
One year later, in 1928, at the conference convened in Rome for the purpose of revising the Berne Convention, the opinions were still uncompromising. And those who followed its proceedings declare " that it would not have been possible to attain an agreement if the question of public receiving sets had been discussed." Indeed, the Court of Amsterdam decided in 1929 that " according to the law of 1912, the word performance may be applied only to the fact of performing the work at the broadcasting station where such work will be broadcast."
On the 20th of January, 1930, the Court of Copenhagen delivered a similar decision. On the 19th of October, 1931, the High Court of Germany, although Germany like the other countries already mentioned, was a signatory to the Rome Convention of 1928, decided that:
The operating of a receiving set does not constitute a new process from the legal point of view, but only a part of a complex broadcasting process which begins with the production of sounds in front of the microphone of the broadcasting station, and ends with the reconstitution of the sounds by an indefinite number of receiving sets. And this complex whole represents a "public performance" or a "commercial reproduction" of the musical work.
If section 11 bis of the Rome convention, by which the word " broadcasting " was added, were to cover the case of receiving sets, the Court of Copenhagen, the Court of Amsterdam, and the High Court of Germany, all of countries signatory to the Berne and Rome conventions, surely could not have rendered such decisions.
So that, according to the interpretation of the conventions of Berne and Rome by the three nations I have just mentioned and who were signatories to those conventions, nothing stands in the way of the proposed legislation exempting radio receiving sets from copyright fees.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is eleven o'clock.


Maxime Raymond: I shall not be very long.


Frederick George Sanderson: If the hon, gentleman has consent, he might conclude in a moment or two.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Maxime Raymond: I might add the opinion of a jurist who is a specialist in the matter, 51052-37$
Hoffman, who stated at the fourth International Juridical Conference of 1930:
The person who installs a loud speaker is not giving a performance, he is simply divulging the performance of somebody else.
The same opinion is held in the United States. For instance, in a case decided in the State of California, where the broadcasting station had obtained permission to broadcast the author's protected works, Judge McCormick made the following statement:
The performance in such cases, takes place in the studio of the broadcasting station, and the operator of the receiving set in effect does nothing more than one would do who opened a window and permitted the strains of music of a passing band to come within the enclosure in which he was located. It is true that it is the voluntary act of the person turning the dial on the receiving set that enables electricity to animate the mechanism so as to make audible within hearing distance of the receiving set that which is disseminated from the broadcasting station, and which is on the air by reason of the broadcast, but such voluntary action, in my opinion, is far from "performing" the copyrighted work. The performance, which is licensed as just stated, occurs entirely in the studio of the broadcasting station, where the copyrighted musical composition is lawfully used, and the action occurring at the receiving set is simultaneous therewith, and is in no sense a reproduction of the musical composition that is being lawfully performed at the broadcasting studio. The action, play, and use of the copyrighted composition has been completed within the studio.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unfair to ask a fee for a radio receiving set from people who have no control whatever over programs selected by the broadcasting station. As a result of such a policy, any receiving set owner would have to khut his radio when speeches, addresses, the day's news, market quotations, musical programs are broadcasted lest he might happen to listen to some song coming from a broadcasting station and subject to copyrights held by the Canadian Performing Right Society.
That, I think, would be both arbitrary and abusive. The Canadian Performing Right Society is already collecting a royalty through the licence fee from the performing artist; it is also collecting a second royalty through the licence fee paid by the broadcasting station, and a third one for the same work from the owner of the receiving set. The simple mention of the fact is sufficient to prove the absurdity of such a proposition.
These facts, Mr. Speaker, and also the authorities I have just quoted tend to prove conclusively, to my mind, that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kootenay-West does not interfere with the Berne convention as amended by the Rome convention; the effect of this amendment, if adopted
5S0
C. N. R.-Auditors

by the house, would be to prevent abuses on the part of any company monopolizing copyrights for the benefit of a few exploiters.
On motion of Mr. Turgeon the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Dunning the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Friday, February 18, 1938