REMARKS OP MR. LACOMBE IN DEBATE ON JUNE 25-STATEMENT OP MR. SPEAKER-MOTION FOR COMMITTEE OP INVESTIGATION

Mr. SPEAKER:: In view of the widespread public interest regarding the statement which was made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) as contained in
Hansard of Friday, June 25 last, at page 4042:
Nous avons dans le Gouvernement trois nouveaux millionnaires depuis la declaration de la guerre. Nous les denoncerons en temps et lieu. Les fortunes s'edifient.
Or, in English:
We have in the government three new millionaires since the declaration of war. We will denounce them at the proper time and place. Fortunes are being built up.

Privileges oj The House

And also the statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as set forth in Hansard of June 28, at page 4072:
A moment ago my colleague the Minister of Justice drew my attention to a statement made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains which is of a very serious character. I had not up to that time observed the remarks to which my colleague referred as well as others and I was not in the house at the time they were made, but X find them in Hansard in the official report of the English translation of speeches delivered in French on the date indicated.
I wish to say that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains has made a grave accusation against three members of the government, so grave that the implied and, it seems to me, the only meaning which can be drawn from the statement is that these three unnamed members are using their position to accumulate fortunes. Although unnamed, as the statement now stands, all and every member of the government stand accused.
No more serious accusation could be made reflecting as it does on the integrity of members of the government, especially those charged with the executive positions of government. The hon. member must have realized the import of his remarks and duly considered the disastrous effect such a charge, if unchallenged, would have on public opinion, not only in Canada but throughout the world, especially at this serious period of our national life.
The Prime Minister has challenged the statement and has asked that the hon. member should be obliged either to withdraw the statement completely or else to convert it into a specific charge to be investigated in the usual manner.
If the hon. member so challenged refuses either to withdraw the charge or make a specific charge to prove the truth of his statement, he must accept that responsibility and govern himself in accordance with the practice usually followed in such cases.
I would be loath myself to apply rigorous measures against the hon. member. I am inclined to the view that this is a matter upon which the house should decide. At this moment we are dealing with what is a question of privilege and no formal proceeding is before the Chair. I must point out, however, that I view this incident with grave misgivings not only because ministers are affected, but also because the privileges of each and every hon. member are affected.

Standing order 41 provides:
No member . . . shall use offensive words against either house or against any member thereof.
If the house so decides, a motion can be made that this question be referred to the committee on privileges and elections for investigation and report, after which the house will decide wThat action should be taken.
I take it that the house will now expect the hon. member to make a statement, and I will ask him to do so now.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw the words which are attributed to me in the English translation of Hansard, words which I never said, and which are attributed to me only by distorting the French text of my remarks. But first I would draw the attention of this house to the fact that the government has been delegating since the beginning of the wTar part of its power to numerous commissions where millionaires are sitting for a salary of one dollar a year. But these commissions are an integral part of the government or of the administration, which the opposition, to which I belong, has the right to criticize.
I point out to the right hon. the Prime Minister that my words were in no way directed against the members of his cabinet. According to standing order 41:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof. No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
Mr. Speaker, if I made a statement which is offensive to any member of this house, or to any member of the cabinet, I am prepared to withdraw immediately this statement, but I submit respectfully that I cannot withdraw what I never said. I repeat that if I have made any statement offensive to any member of this house or to any member of the cabinet, I withdraw it entirely and immediately.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I cannot see that what
the hon. member has just said in any way meets the very grave situation for which he is responsible. His words at the outset were serious enough in their reflection upon members of the cabinet. From what I read of his explanation in the press he said that "le Gouvemement" did not mean "the cabinet," that it meant the party which supported

Privileges of The House
the cabinet. I cannot say whether the hon. member said that or not, but he is reported so to have spoken to the press. At any rate he has withdrawn nothing to-day, it seems to me, which would remove the implication that some members of this House of Commons have been profiteering as a consequence of opportunities afforded by the war. That is an imputation which no member of this house can afford to have stand against either himself or any other member without the very fullest possible investigation.
I believe the quickest way to deal with this matter, Mr. Speaker, is, as you, Your Honour, have suggested, namely, to refer to the committee on privileges and elections the statement which the hon. member made as it appears in Hansard, and that the committee on privileges and elections should go very fully into the whole matter. I would therefore move, seconded by Mr. Ralston:
That Liguori Lacombe, Esquire, member representing the electoral division of Laval-Two Mountains, in the house, having declared from his seat:
"Nous avons dans le Gouvernement trois nouveaux millionnaires depuis la declaration de la guerre. Nous les denoncerons en temps et lieu. Les fortunes s'edifient." the select standing committee on privileges and elections be instructed to inquire fully into this allegation and to report in full the evidence taken together with all the procedure on this reference and the result of their inquiry for such action thereon as the house may determine.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, before this
motion is discussed in the house, to avoid expenses on this account, and to avoid something against the war effort, I withdraw entirely what I have stated in this house, as the right hon. the Prime Minister asked me a few moments ago.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I do not rise for the purpose of defending the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains; but in a public statement which he made, or is reported to have made, and to which the Prime Minister has alluded, the hon. member raised an issue which, I think, ought to be settled, having regard to the fact that the allegations which he is said to have made in the house are in the French language, and his assertion that the translation upon which the Prime Minister relies is not a correct translation. I am going to ask the Prime Minister if the translation which he used the other day is an absolutely correct one. If this were a matter for a court of law, and one were framing a statement of claim or a declaration for defamation in a language other thanr-in my own province-the English
language, the exact words complained of would have to be stated, and the innuendo framed thereon as to the defamatory intent.
I should like to know before this motion passes if there has been made an authoritative translation of the language alleged to have been used by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. He has apparently challenged that both outside the house and, if I understood him correctly, inside the house to-day. While I have no brief for the hon. member, and while I abhor the hurling of these charges across the floor of the house, may I suggest to the Prime Minister that perhaps the concluding statement of the hon. member is a complete withdrawal, and that might end the incident. Perhaps he might be asked to apologize to the house. I think that would be the proper course to pursue. But I do not like to see people punished for things they may say on the spur of the moment. I suppose that if I had been punished for everything I said on the spur of the moment I would not be here at all. It seems to me that this would be a charitable view to take.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Mr. Speaker, I quite concur in the motion that the Prime Minister has introduced this afternoon. Unfortunately, during the last two or three years of war, there has been built up in this country in the minds of some people the notion that certain persons are profiteering as a result of the war effort. Perhaps because I am in industry, I know something of the situation of those who are working in our war effort and doing a great deal to advance it, and I am opposed to encouraging in this country the idea that such people are taking advantage of the war to amass fortunes for themselves. I do not believe that anyone in industry to-day is in a position to make a fortune as a result of the war effort. I have never questioned the loyalty of any other Canadian; I have always felt that every one of us is in this war to fight it to a finish, it matters not at what cost. An allegation has been made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains against members of the cabinet, or members of this house. In his apology he more or less referred to the members of the House of Commons in his own translation of what he said. I think that this is unfair, and so far as I am concerned, if there is any charge at all it should be investigated to the full, because the people of Canada ought to realize that everybody in this country who is invested with any responsibility is doing all he can to prosecute the war to the fullest
Privileges oj The House

extent, without any regard to profit. But the result of the activities of a certain political party in the last two or three years has been to create the feeling that you cannot trust any man who has a responsible position in industry. I think the time has come when vve should recognize that there are people in this country, regardless of their financial standing, who do want to win this war and are doing everything they can to that end. I vehemently resent therefore the insinuation that simply because a man happens to have an industry, or occupies some position that may carry a large salary with it, his sole idea is one of profit to himself. I have never questioned the loyalty of my fellow Canadians, and I resent with all the force I can put into it the idea that simply because some man happens to own an industry or to be interested in industry his only object is to make some profit out of the war, no matter what happens. I think we should have a full investigation into the charges made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains, notwithstanding that he has withdrawn his statement. Let us go into the matter to the very bottom and show conclusively that the members of this house are certainly above any such imputation as that made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I am wondering what purpose will be served by passing the motion after the withdrawal made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. If the hon. member had not withdrawn his statement that would be another matter, but in my opinion he withdrew unreservedly all references he made on the occasion in question. After Your Honour's request for a statement from the hon. member -I admit that his first explanation was not satisfactory-he did make a complete withdrawal. What can be gained by an investigation? I do not know that there are any damages or penalties that can be applied to the hon. member. We can find him guilty of making the statements and possibly he could be unseated and there would be another election. But I do not know that anything would be gained thereby. I suggest that under the circumstances, and taking into consideration also the circumstances under which the speech was made, it would be much better if the hon. member's withdrawal were accepted and the motion dropped.


Mr. RODOLPHE LEDUC (Wright):: I was in the house on Friday afternoon when the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains delivered his speech and I can swear that the words which he used in French are the

exact words that appear in Hansard. At that time I wanted to ask the hon. member the names of the ministers, but it happened that there was a French minister sitting in his seat and I thought he would interrupt the member for Laval-Two Mountains and ask him what the names were. I cannot accept the withdrawal which the hon. member made a few minutes ago, because he declared, in withdrawing his statement, that he was willing to withdraw in order to save this country money and to save time as well. If therefore his withdrawal is accepted by the house he will be in a position to go outside this parliament and say that if he had not wanted to save the country time and money he could have proven his accusation.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: It seems to me that the hon. member withdrew without qualification the second time.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains has already spoken. We are not in committee.


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville):: I wish to say just a few words. I completely concur in the views of the right hon. the Prime Minister. The integrity of members of this national assembly must be kept sacred, and no member of the house has the right to say anything which would diminish the reputation of any other member. The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains made a very serious and grave charge, as Your Honour said. There may be circumstances which would not excuse, though they might explain, the language of a person, but in the criminal law it does not matter if a crime is committed while a man is not in possession of the well-balanced mind which otherwise he has. I am not here to defend the hon. gentleman, but I understand that in a case of slander, if a newspaper withdraws unconditionally what it has written there is no action in law against it and the matter is completely abandoned. The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains did withdraw. He said, however, that he withdrew because he did not want to have this parliament go to the expense of an investigation or an inquiry. If I understood the Prime Minister correctly, he said that unless the hon. gentleman withdrew unconditionally the accusation must be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. As we are not satisfied with the declaration of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains, is it not permissible-because we know his intent; he intends to withdraw-for Your Honour to draft a declaration which would be satisfactory

Privileges oj The House
to this house and ask the hon. member if he is ready to accept it? In those circumstances the House of Commons would be satisfied and the integrity of members of the house vindicated. I humbly submit to Your Honour that if this procedure could be followed, if you would ask the hon. member to accept such a declaration, if it were satisfactory to him, we could accept it also.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I am not so sure that this type of investigation would be satisfactory. When you speak of putting this case before a house committee, that cannot be compared in any sense to a court of justice, because unquestionably on a house committee the predominance would be Liberal and other parties would be represented proportionately. I do not think the question will be settled in that way. I' am very much in doubt about the translation that has been made of the statement. The Prime Minister has not yet answered the hon. member for York-Sunbury, who asked whether this was a confirmed translation. There are some of us here who do not know whether that is a proper translation.


Mr. LALONDE:: The motion is based upon the French version.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member himself has stated that the translation into English was not a proper translation. Further, I think that what you said when you first spoke was quite proper and I agree with the stand you took. You asked the hon. member if he was prepared to withdraw his statement; if not, other means would have to be taken. When he was speaking the hon. member said definitely that if there was a charge against any member of this house or any member of the cabinet he was prepared to withdraw it. Without giving him a chance to say anything further on the question, the Prime Minister moved his motion. Then the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains made a further clarification of his former statement.


Mr. HOMUTH:: He just beclouded it.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is what you think. Perhaps an investigation might prove a whole lot more than you have in mind.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I have not anything in mind.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member made a statement clarifying what he had said the first time. Without question he withdrew it unconditionally.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: That again is your opinion. I hold no brief for the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains, but I do like to see justice done. I do not care what he said before, he has said now that he will withdraw unconditionally.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: We are divided even on that. This just goes to show what kind of procedure will be followed in the committee, I do not think you, sir, would consider a house committee as being comparable to a court in dealing with a case like this. As the Prime Minister has said, this is a serious charge. I do not think the millionaires are going to take much offence.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Who are the millionaires?


Charles Edward Johnston: Maybe you can name them.	[DOT]


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not know them, but you referred to them. If you do not know them, why talk about them?


Charles Edward Johnston: You were talking about them.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I was not talking about them. Name them if you know them.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The people get sick and tired of this.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman who has the floor has the right to speak.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But he talks too much.


Thomas Vien: I must ask the house to remember that we are discussing a very serious matter. Every member of this house is entitled to speak and to be heard.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: People are being accused.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sorry if I seem to have trod on the toes of the hon. member.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You have not trod on my toes, don't worry about that.


Thomas Vien: I ask the hon. member for Waterloo South not to interrupt the hon. gentleman who is speaking.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: All right, but he should not make allegations.


Charles Edward Johnston: I believe it would be in the interests of all concerned if the Prime Minister would withdraw the motion he has placed before the house.
Privileges o) The House


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that this is a case in which justice might well be tempered with mercy, for three reasons. First, this man gets up in the house in the evening when he is perhaps feeling sick, or perhaps too good, and he makes what now appears to be a foolish and utterly untrue statement. Then, to make matters a great deal worse, the statement is not translated properly, something that is not his fault. I do not know much about French, but I know how to translate three or four simple words. The French as it appears before us here, and as it appeared in some of the newspapers, is to the effect that we have in the government three new millionaires since the declaration of war. Then the translation puts in words that were not there by saying, "three new millionaires who have made their money" since the war's outbreak. Those words "who have made their money" are not in the original French, and the translation makes the offence, if it is an offence, a great deal worse. The hon. member has explained that, and he has also suggested that "government" does not mean "cabinet". I do not know about that, but I do know that these English words that appear here were not in the original French. I think we could well overlook utterances made in the evening under certain conditions. ' I am not in that condition very often myself, so that perhaps I cannot speak with authority.
The third reason is that we are likely to make ourselves supremely ridiculous, and that is a thing not to be desired in parliament. Those of us who have been very long in politics know that this has happened before. I was not in the house at the time, but it happened in the British Columbia house. A reporter made some foolish break-I think he got up a fake bill or something of the kind. It was taken by most of the house as a good joke, but some of the members of the government were affronted. They thought their dignity had 'been affected and they demanded that he be called to the *bar of the house. He was called to the bar of the house and was finally sentenced to be taken into custody by the sergeant-at-arms. They followed the English custom, and he was ordered to be placed in the tower. But they had no tower in British Columbia at the time, so that he lived at the best hotel in the town at the people's expense for a couple of days. Finally a delegate from the government went to him and asked if he would mind calling it all off. The result was that they appeared supremely ridiculous.

The hon. member feels that he has apologized. He says that he did not intend to cast any reflection upon any member of the government, and I think it would be well if we were to accept his statement.


Thomas Vien: The words of the motion seem to have been overlooked. They read:
That Liguori Lacom.be, Esquire, member representing the electoral district of Laval-Two Mountains in the house, having declared from his seat-
Only the French text is used in the motion, not the English text.


Maurice Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I was present in the house when the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains delivered his speech and I can corroborate what the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Leduc) has said, to the effect that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains used these French words:
Nous avons dans le Gouvernement trois nouveaux millionnaires depuis la declaration de la guerre. Nous les denoneerons en temps et lieu. Les fortunes s'edifient.
If my memory serves me aright, I think the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains was reading his speech, so that it is of no use for us-


Liguori Lacombe: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has stated that I was reading a text. That is absolutely false as I had given my text to the newspapers. The hon. member for Labelle was interrupting me without my permission.


Maurice Lalonde: I am bound to accept the declaration of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains, but we must all admit that the words used by the hon. member were exactly the same as they appear in this resolution. We have to decide whether or not the house will accept the resolution now before the Chair. It is of no use for us to quarrel about whether or not the translation from French into English has been well done, because the resolution contains the French version, and we are called upon to approve or reject it. So that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains should not think I am getting after him too severely; but if he does not withdraw completely and without reservation the statement he made in the French language I am ready to vote for this resolution. If the house is kind enough to give the hon. member another chance to withdraw completely the statement he made, without any conditions, then I shall be ready to take another view.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, no.

Privileges oj The House


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: I do not intend to take any sides on this question, since I am a member of the committee which, if this resolution is adopted, will investigate this charge, but I should like to read a few words from Hansard of Monday, June 28.


Thomas Vien: Is the hon. gentleman referring to a previous debate in this house? If so, he will be out of order.


Robert Fair: I want to read the words of the Prime Minister, because they have a direct bearing on the withdrawal that has just been made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. This is exactly the same question, and apparently it has not been decided yet. In the last paragraph on page 4072 of Hansard for May 28, I find these words coming from the Prime Minister:
The proper time and place to make a statement of that kind is in this House of Commons with the hon. member simultaneously undertaking to prove the charge, or, if he is unable to do so, to resign his seat in this house. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member should be obliged either to withdraw the statement completely or else to convert it into a specific charge to be investigated in the usual manner, and the consequences of the investigation also to be followed up in the usual manner.
I submit that on the second attempt the hon,. member for Laval-Two Mountains did withdraw the charge which was made, completely and unreservedly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert Fair: I have been on committees of this house and in this chamber long enough to know that the sort of thing we hear across the floor of the house goes on both in committee and here, whether or not it is in accordance with the facts. If a member of the opposition wants to carry on some conr versation or some argument which is not in line with what the majority of the committee wants to bring forward, then, that hon. member is howled down, as I have been howled down in committee on more than one occasion. I do not intend to be howled down here or in committee after this. I am making my protest now; and I do not think the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains will get the justice in the committee that he would get before a court of law.


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member who has just taken his seat has cast a reflection on hon. members of the house. I am quite sure the hon. member does not intend to do so, but certainly he should withdraw that statement.


Robert Fair: Owing to the noise in the chamber I could not hear exactly what you said, Mr. Speaker, but I think if you and hon. members of this house will look at what I have said you will find that I was perfectly right in making the statement I did make.


Thomas Vien: Order. The words of the hon. member as I caught them were that, in referring to his relations with committees, he found that he had not received the justice from hon. members that he expected. That is a reflection upon the members of this house. I do not think the hon. gentleman intended to cast any such reflection, but it is on Hansard now and I would ask him to withdraw it.


Robert Fair: I stated, and I d.o not think there is any disagreement about it, that when I wanted to carry on an argument with which the majority of the committee did not agree, I was howled down.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where?


Robert Fair: In the agriculture committee, if you want me to name the committee.


An hon. MEMBER:: When?


Robert Fair: During the discussion of the wheat board report.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as I heard my hon. friend he went a good deal further than, to refer to his experience in a committee. He went on to say that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains would not get justice from the committee on privileges and elections. I contend that this statement is a reflection on every member of the committee and every member of this house, and that the hon. gentleman should withdraw it unequivocally and unreservedly.


Robert Fair: I think the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Macdonald) should look over my remarks once more. What I said was that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains would not get the same treatment in the committee that is proposed to be set up to deal with his case as he would in a court of justice. Those are exactly the words I used, and they can be found in Hansard.


Mr. QUELCH:: I do not see how there can be any dispute in regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Battle River. This Kill be a partisan committee, dealing with & partisan subject; therefore it will not be able to deal with it impartially and will not be able to give justice to the hon. member.


Thomas Vien: I must call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that in referring to the deliberations of any committee
Privileges oj The House

no hon. member may cast reflections upon the justice or decorum of the members of the committee, or suggest that they will not properly carry out their duties as members of the committee. No such reflection may be cast upon any members of a committee or of the house, and I ask all hon. members to refrain from such statements.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the point of order, in effect Your Honour has ruled that no member may impute motives, and with that I am in agreement. But to dispute the decision of a committee and say that it is unjust, or may be unjust, is well within the rights of any hon. member.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has said that to dispute the findings of a committee or to say they may be so-and-so is quite legitimate. That is not what at least three hon. members have said in the hearing of this house this afternoon. Their statement has been that a committee of this house will not deal impartially with a certain question. That is the point of the statement that has been made; that is the intent of it, that justice cannot be expected from a committee of this house. Certainly that is a reflection upon the personnel of committees of this house, which no hon. member has a right to make. I do submit that we are losing sight entirely of what should be uppermost in the mind of every member of parliament; that is, to have his own privileges protected to the greatest extent possible. If the privileges of members are not fully protected the work of parliament under the democratic system cannot be carried on in a manner which will carry with it the support of public opinion. And every member who rises in his place and reflects upon another member's integrity, or the integrity of a committee of this house, is helping to undermine the true principles of democracy on which our parliamentary institutions are founded. I submit that Your Honour cannot be too rigid in insisting that where members do cast reflections upon other members, they be obliged to withdraw immediately. This whole case, of which so much is being said in the house, is the result of a lot of loose talking and of reflections by some hon. members upon others, which has been permitted to take place time and again. Had it been summarily dealt with at the outset it would probably not have resulted in the last indent.


John Horne Blackmore: On the point of order, when the hon. member for Battle River made his remarks, hon. members in other parts of the house were making so much noise that it was impossible to hear what the hon. member 
for Battle River was saying. I ask the Prime Minister if he thinks that hon. members of his party were granting the hon. member for Battle River justice and freedom. Were they granting justice to the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains, in whose behalf the hon. member for Battle River was at that time speaking?


Mr. HANSELL:: May we get on with the discussion of the motion?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about getting on with the war?


Liguori Lacombe: On a question of
privilege-


Thomas Vien: I have already drawn to the attention of hon. members the terms of standing order 41, namely that no member shall make offensive remarks against any other member of the house. There have been offensive remarks made to-day. They are not confined to one person, or two; because three hon. members have said that it would not in their judgment be justice to the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains if this matter were sent to a committee. These remarks are wholly out of order, and they should be withdrawn. I ask that the hon. member for Battle River withdraw his remarks so far as they reflect upon hon. members of the house who are members of committees.


Robert Fair: I am bound to withdraw, and I do withdraw. But I want to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Fair: -that my remark was that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains would not get the same treatment in a committee as he would in a court of justice.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, it is true, as you have said, that the apparent charge of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains is a serious one. I recognize that, if I read correctly the English translation as recorded in Hansard of last Friday. But the motion now before the house is also very serious. Every hon, member in the house is placed in the position of having to take his stand on this motion, and having to weigh in his mind whether there is a possibility of a private member being, shall I say, put into absolute political oblivion, or permitted to retain his seat. That is the position in which every hon. member is placed, and that is what every hon. member must decide when he votes upon this motion.
I am wondering if such a motion may not be interpreted as even casting a little reflection

Privileges oj The House
upon the Prime Minister and his cabinet, or his party in the house. I am certain the Prime Minister must have weighed the situation very carefully before he made this motion. May I just suggest one or two things at this point. The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains was once a member of the Liberal party. He has disagreed with its policies. The time came when he eventually crossed the floor of the house. May I interject here that while the Prime Minister said a moment or two ago that there was very much loose talking, and that it perhaps resulted in the hon. member's making this statement, it is perhaps the result, too, of a beclouded policy held by the party which is now on the government side of the house, and that has caused an antagonism to arise on the part of this hon. member. Be that as it may, he did not agree with the government's policy, but crossed the floor to this side of the house. He stands alone. As a result, naturally his feelings are very keen in respect to his duties here. As a result of that he has caused some trouble in the house in days gone by. I am not speaking in behalf of the hon. member, for I have no brief for him. I am speaking of the interpretation which may be given to this motion. His feelings ran high last Friday afternoon when he made certain statements. The Prime Minister has seen the seriousness of these statements, and made a statement the other day about them, the result of which has been to-day's procedure. The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains rose and withdrew his statement, with what some hon. members considered to be a certain qualification.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Quite.


Ernest George Hansell: Now it would appear perhaps that the Prime Minister is not satisfied with that withdrawal, and seizes upon the opportunity of putting over-of putting a motion to the house which may result in the house getting rid of this member. I am saying that that could be the interpretation. And I think I can say that perhaps it will be the interpretation in some sections of this country, anyway.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the hon. member if that is his belief? He is making insinuations. I ask him to make a direct statement.


Ernest George Hansell: I am making no insinuations at all, and the Prime Minister cannot do with me what perhaps he thinks he can do with some people. I am making no insinuations. As a matter of fact I am trying to protect the Prime Minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: I am saying that the interpretation in this country may be as I have said. I am simply following that up by suggesting what I believe to be a way out of the difficulty. What I am going to suggest may be regarded as-well, shall I say not a hundred per cent technically, according to parliamentary procedure. I am going to suggest this, that you might ask the hon. member for Laval Two-Mountains if he will now unqualifiedly withdraw his statement. If he answers yes, then cannot the Prime Minister respond by saying that he will withdraw his motion?
Mr. JE AN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Ternis-couata): Mr. Speaker, as an old defender of widows and orphans I submit respectfully that I have some sympathy, in the first place, with the hon. member for Battle River, because when he started to speak there was some noise; perhaps someone, was coughing. At any rate I know there was some noise which could have been interpreted as an interruption. It is against the principles of democracy to interrupt a member by making a noise, other than by putting a legitimate question, when he is addressing the Chair. He comes from a good Celtic race and perhaps was a little quick in making some observations, no doubt feeling that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains would not receive fair treatment before the committee on privileges and elections. I would remind the house of a case which had just been submitted to that committee involving a former member of the house, a man who is no longer a member, but who received fair treatment. AH the members had a good word for him.
Let us come down to fundamentals. According to the Interpretation Act each publication which bears the name of the king's printer and comes from the printing bureau is official and is admitted as evidence before any court of the land, and must be accepted as such. The only difficulty in this case is that there are two texts of Hansard, but each of them is not a translation. It is what we call a version. There is the French version and the English version, or the French text and the English text. Both are admitted as evidence in a court of law. But on the other hand, as the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains spoke in French the report of his remarks is in French, and the English translation is entirely different from the French text. In the French text he used the words which appear in the resolution now before the house:
Nous avons dans le Gouvernement trois nouveaux millionnaires depuis la declaration de la guerre.

Privileges of The House

That means in English: We have in the government three new millionaires since the declaration of the war. But how is that sentence in the French text translated in the . English version of Hansardt It is translated this way:
We have here in the cabinet three new millionaires who have made their money since the war's outbreak.
That is not the same thing at all; it is entirely different.
I have listened to some of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken, especially the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Leduc), who said:
I do not accept the withdrawal of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not for him to decide whether the withdrawal is sufficient or not. No one but yourself, Mr. Speaker, can decide whether the withdrawal of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains is sufficient to comply with the rules of the house. You, sir, are the only one in this house who may accept his withdrawal or not accept it.
I remember distinctly when I was sitting to the left of Mr. Speaker in the glorious times when Mr. Bennett was Prime Minister, I often had occasion to speak of Mr. Bennett, and in an innocent way sometimes I would say of him that he had a "million" air. Once I spoke in the house on very different lines. I was addressing Mr. Speaker and saying that we were all poor, that I was poor, that my desk-mate, who has since died, was a poor man, that another hon. gentleman who was sitting in front of me and who is now in the senate was a ppor man. The gentleman who is now a senator did not object to my saying that, but my deskmate said I should not have said it, that it is embarrassing sometimes to say that we are poor. Of course it is an embarrassment, but it is not a shame to be poor. But to say that a man is a millionaire or that he looks like a millionaire-is that such a terrible accusation? Many a time we will greet our friends and say: "You have a million-dollar smile." Is there any insult in that? The thing must be taken broadly.
I think that when a man with the pride which we know the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains has withdraws in the terms in which he did, withdraws all that was offensive to any member of the house sitting on the treasury benches, he has done his utmost. What is there left to withdraw? There is nothing offensive left if he means what he said.
Further, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains has said that he had in mind the dollar-a-year men, and according to the rules

of the house we must accept his statement. He said he had in mind those men who are giving their time to the government for a . dollar a year and who are a part of the government. They are not members of the house. They are employees of the government and a part of the government. So much is that the case that when, the clerks and stenographers of grades 1 and 2 who are assigned to their offices are asked where they work, they say: I am working for the government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit very respectfully to you that what the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains has said in his withdrawal covers the case completely, and there is nothing left for the house to deal with, according to the rules that bind us all. I trust that you will consider what I have said, and I rely as usual on your wisdom to decide whether or not the withdrawal of the hon. member is sufficient according to the rules of the house.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege and to stop all this discussion, I withdraw unconditionally at the request of the Prime Minister the following words as reported in the French Hansard:
Nous avons dans le Gouvernement trois nouveaux millionnaires depuis la declaration de la guerre. Nous les denoneerons en temps et lieu. Les fortunes s'edifient.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I preface my remarks on this question by saying that I do not suppose there are two members of the House of Commons whose views are so diametrically opposite on most of the problems which confront us than those of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains and myself. But I was in the house when the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains made his speech, and while I was able to follow it only imperfectly, I have given some consideration to it since. I would say as emphatically as I can that, particularly in a period of war, loose statements must not be made with reference to public men, public institutions or public services generally. I want to make my position perfectly clear in that respect. Whatever justification-and little justification can I see-there .may be for such proceedings in time of peace, we now require the maximum of unity if we are to survive or if our institutions which are under attack are to be maintained. I was shocked at the statement which was made by the hon. member. I hope no other hon. members will follow his example. I trust that there will be no repetition of things of this kind. Reflections upon the government, upon parliament, upon public

Privileges of The House
men generally-yes, upon 'private individuals as well throughout Canada^-cannot possibly be helpful in the struggle in which we are now engaged.
Having thus stated our position, with, respect to this matter, I would, however, say in the most kindly way to the Prime Minister that the motion now before the house seems to me to betray some anxiety, although I do not say, by design, to press this matter as quickly as possible to its full conclusion. I do not wish to reflect upon the Prime Minister's attitude in this regard, but in these days he, as well as all of us, must avoid the very appearance of evil in these matters. When the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains was asked whether he had a statement to make, and rose in his seat and in the English tongue made a withdrawal which the Prime Minister, or perhaps I should say, Your Honour, found to be an imperfect withdrawal, the Prime Minister at once rose and moved the motion which is now before the house and which is being pressed so vigorously by the government.
Some mention has been made from the government benches about the matter of justice. Without reflecting in this connection upon the government or the Prime Minister, it seems to me that, in the moral realm, at least, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains should be given the opportunity in a gracious and benevolent way by the Prime Minister of unequivocally withdrawing the statement he has made. He has now made a further withdrawal, which I personally think is sufficient in the circumstances. We should be careful in these times to avoid the possibility of any misapprehension as to our dealings with a member of this house, no matter how we may disagree [DOT]with him or how far his views may be opposed to ours. As the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said a few moments ago, at a time when we are standing for the rights and privileges of the little man, the House of Commons is the place where we must exercise every possible care so that no one can assume that one of our members receives any less than the measure of consideration which we would give to members of the general public.
I am very earnest about this or I would not have spoken as feelingly as I have done, but, having listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) I am further confirmed in my opinion as to the right course in the circumstances. I ask the Prime Minister in all sincerity if he will not reconsider the whole matter in the light of the unequivocal withdrawal which the hon.
member has made, so that we in this chamber will not give the public the impression that this matter is being pressed to a conclusion which only meets the wishes of the government; rather let us be charitable under the special circumstances which have arisen with respect to the hon. member.
I would add, before I sit down, that any such course should not be regarded as a slackening of our diligence and vigilance in defending our institutions. If it were to be so regarded the situation, of course, would be different. But when the hon. member has withdrawn the statement he has made, when the House of Commons has thus defended its privileges and those of its members, I think we may properly be satisfied without taking our full pound of flesh. Nothing is to be gained by pressing this to the conclusion which the government now seems so intent upon doing. I would range myself this afternoon in what I regard as defence of a member of parliament whose views I cannot accept and for whose conduct so far as this or the previous debates are concerned I offer no defence. It was not in the public interest for him to have said what he did, and I am sorry he did so. But, these things being borne in mind, surely it is the defence of our institutions and the maintenance of our privileges in which we are most interested. I trust the Prime Minister will find himself in agreement with the suggestion that, by accepting the hon. member's unequivocal withdrawal, we shall have defended our privileges and at the same time have served warning and administered a caution to everyone across Canada that they cannot make loose statements and, to use a vernacular term, "get away with it." But let us not, so to speak, go over the precipice by doing something which might be regarded in many quarters-although I make no such charge or allegation-as nearing the point of actual persecution.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I should like to ask a question. But first I would say that the only thing of real value which any of us possess is character, and when anyone insinuates that I as a member of parliament am in the way of being a millionaire, I say that that man's freedom of speech ends when injury to my character begins. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, in the face of the statement which has been made by at least one cabinet minister that there will be no crop of millionaires during this war-and I think that is right-if it is not too late for the hon. member to stand up in his place and say, "I withdraw the statement-"


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He did.
72537-265}
Privileges oj The House

Mr. McIVOR. "-absolutely-"


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He did.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: "-as totally untrue"?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He did so.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Richelieu-Vercheres):: I have one or two observations to make with reference to the question that has been raised touching the statements made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains.
You, Mr. Speaker, drew to the attention of the house the fact that the incident had been given wide publicity in Canada and that was the chief reason, according to my understanding of your decision, why you invited the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains to make a statement. If the statement was given wide publicity, do you not think, sir, that an investigation will provide much wider publicity for something that should not have been said by the hon. member and which he has retracted? When the investigation is being carried out by the committee on privileges and elections, an open investigation, who is to stop the reporting of the proceedings and the interpretations that will be given to every word uttered before that committee? Where will be the end to the wide publicity that will be given to an unwise statement made by the hon. member? That is one point.
The Prime Minister protested, and rightly so, against the assertion of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. On page 4073, at the top of the page, the right hon. gentleman made this statement:
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member should be obliged either to withdraw the statement completely or else to convert it into a specific charge to be investigated in the usual manner.
I suggest that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains has agreed to the request of the Prime Minister that he should withdraw the statement completely. He did withdraw the statement completely. He withdrew it on two occasions. First of all he did it when Your Honour requested him to make a statement after you had given your ruling; and when his withdrawal was criticized on the ground that it was not complete, the hon. member rose again on a question of privilege and clarified it, stating that he was withdrawing word for word what he had said; the very words that are included in the motion made by the Prime Minister.
What will be the result of the motion? In the first place, what is the effect of the withdrawal of the statement of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains? It removes that statement from our records. The motion declaring that the hon. member for Laval-Two

Mountains has made a certain statement is not therefore in accordance with the facts after the hon. member has withdrawn that statement. That is the situation as it appears to me at the moment. There is nothing to refer to the committee on privileges and elections. The statement referred to in the motion has been withdrawn by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains.
I need not repeat that I do not defend the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains; I have been in disagreement with him on certain occasions. But I submit that it is a matter of justice and fair play. If there is something wrong in the publicity given to the incident, we should not go one better in widening that publicity by having a standing committee investigate a statement which, as I say, does not exist any longer on the records of the house.
According to standing order 41 of the House of Commons, when a member makes a statement which is injurious or unfair to another member and, on complaint, withdraws it, the incident is forgotten. It is all over. In my experience in parliament I have heard many misstatements made which were more serious and more definite than the general assertion made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains in a moment when he forgot himself. But when the attention of the offending member, on such occasions as I instance, was drawn to the charge he had made and he was asked to withdraw it, he would agree to the request and the matter was closed.
I submit very respectfully that there is nothing to investigate and that we are losing time discussing such a question and trying to inquire into something that no longer exists as a matter of record. It has been withdrawn.


Thomas Vien: I would point out that when the withdrawal was made by the member for Laval-Two Mountains it was not an unqualified withdrawal. The right hon. the Prime Minister then made the motion which is now being discussed. The matter therefore is not in my hands as Speaker; it is within the jurisdiction of the house, and the house must decide what it will do with the motion that is now before it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: All the speeches that have been made since the motion was submitted have referred to the withdrawal which the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains made, and no one raised any objection. Everyone admits that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains has withdrawn the statement. Without desiring in any way to approve the assertions made by the hon. member, I want to point

Privileges of The House
out that he has several times expressed his willingness to remove the impression that may have been created by his words, and join with those who preceded me, and particularly with -the leader of the opposition, in appealing to the government and to the Prime Minister to show some leniency under the circumstances by withdrawing his motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In concluding the discussion, it might -be well for me to recall to hon. members the sequence of events from the beginning, and also to give the reason why I have taken the course I have. References have been made to myself as Prime Minister and as moving in this matter in that capacity. I should like to remind the house that in the office of Prime Minister I fill yet another position, which is that of leader of the house, and it is a -part of my duty as leader of the house to seek above everything else to protect the privileges of hon. members. I hope, therefore, that hon. members will believe that in the course I have taken I have been actuated primarily by the last consideration. I must say that the moment my attention was drawn to a statement which reflected upon the members of the cabinet, as Prime Minister I spoke on such immediately. I would certainly have been accused of possessing a strange degree of irresponsibility or of laxity had I not at once taken steps to demand that an investigation should be -made into any allegations or imputations if there was the slightest foundation in the world for them. It was not so much a loose statement as it was specific, for the Hansard in- the French version shows that reference was made to three cabinet ministers. That is a pretty direct statement and would imply that the hon, member had at least some knowledge upon which he was basing his statement.
What I have felt about the importance of an investigation i3 that the public mind would wish to be thoroughly satisfied that there was no ground whatever for any statement of the kind, as I certainly believed there was not. The -hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains has himself made pretty clear this afternoon that he had not any ground for making the statement which he did. However the statement was made on Friday night in French. I was not in the house at the time, but when I came into the house on Monday my attention was drawn to it. When I read it I at once felt it to be my duty, both as Prime Minister and as the leader of the house, to rise and draw attention to the statement that had
been made and ask either that it should be completely withdrawn or that the hon. member should make a specific charge and undertake to support it. And if, after investigation it were found that there was no ground for it, then the hon. member would have to resign his seat. If I had not taken that step, what would have been the attitude of some hon. gentlemen who -this afternoon have been saying to me that I have been pressing matters unduly? I may say to the leader of the opposition that I think I have about as sound a moral sense as he or any other hon. member. When he used the expression he did this afternoon referring to the moral attitude-


Gordon Graydon: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I took down the hon. member's words. Perhaps he will be surprised when he reads his exact words.


Gordon Graydon: Those are words I have never used.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I venture to say that if Hansard were read this afternoon it would show that he used the word "moral" because I took it down as his lips uttered it. However, I do not wish to stop at a small point of that kind. What I want to say is that I think I have just as fine a sense of chivalry, or, if my hon. friend does not like the term, morality, as my hon. friend. Reference has been made to tempering justice with mercy. But I do not think anyone can say that at any time in my public life I have tried to be other than generous and gracious in my attitude towards others. That has been my attitude toward men who have been my bitterest political opponents. I challenge anybody to say that in the course of my public life I have at any time taken advantage of any rule or opportunity to try to destroy a political opponent or to belittle him in any way. That is something I hope and pray and believe is foreign to my nature. However, on Monday my duty clearly was to draw the attention of the house immediately to the statement made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains.
Now then, what happened? Yesterday, Tuesday, when the house opened the hon. member was in his seat. I waited to see if he would rise and retract what he had said. I waited to see if His Honour the Speaker would direct the attention of the hon. member, as he has done to-day, to what was the correct course of procedure. Nothing was said at the time. I felt that if I were to rise immediately, possibly just what has been said by some hon. gentlemen opposite would be
Privileges oj The House

said, namely, that I was unduly impatient in pressing the matter and was anxious for political reasons to have the hon. member put in a difficult and unpleasant position. I let the matter stand over simply because I wished to be careful not to have any possibility of any misunderstanding of the kind arise.
The hon. member said nothing; he let the opportunity go by, and then what did he do? To the press he gave an interpretation of his words which if anything enlarged the insinuations and imputations so that they became reflections not merely on members of the ministry but upon the supporters of the government in their entirety. I therefore made up my mind that my duty was to introduce a motion of the kind which I have introduced to-day unless on coming into the house the hon. member was to make full retraction of his statement. When hon. members assembled, His Honour the Speaker gave to the house the statement which is now on record as to what he as the Speaker of this house believed was the course which should be taken. When I spoke on Monday I did not make any request of the hon. member. I made a statement to His Honour the Speaker as to what I believed was the proper procedure in a matter of this kind. I felt it was my duty to direct the attention of His Honour the Speaker and of hon. members of the house generally to, or to remind them of, the procedure that should be followed. The words that I used were the following:
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member should be obliged either to withdraw the statement completely or else to convert it into a specific charge to be investigated in the usual manner, and the consequences of the investigation also to be followed up in the usual manner.
If I had made no reference to the procedure or the steps that should be taken, I should have been at fault in my position as leader of the house seeking to maintain its rights and privileges. To-day His Honour the Speaker has made to the house a statement which accords fully with the procedure I outlined. His Honour has drawn to the attention of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains the fact that there are two courses open to him: either he must withdraw unconditionally, or he should make a charge and ask that it be investigated, with the consequences of the investigation as they may happen to be. Up to that time I had said nothing. The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains rose in his place but he did not make an unconditional withdrawal of his statement. Instead of that, he used language which would make it possible for him to say that he had never made an unconditional withdrawal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He said that he had not used the language attributed to him in the English version as given by the Prime Minister on Monday. I think that would be a correct interpretation of what he said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He also used certain qualifying words which at the moment I have forgotten. First, his withdrawal was quite conditional. What impressed me at the time he spoke was that he not only did not withdraw his statement; he went farther in his insinuations against others by intimating to this house that while it might not have been members of the administration who had became millionaires, there were gentlemen in the .public service to-day who were giving their services to the country at a time of war but who had used their positions to become millionaires. That was a reflection upon a still larger group, composed of those who at this moment are seeking to assist the nation in the carrying on of the war effort. If I had allowed that kind of explanation to go as a withdrawal, I wonder what would have been said to me as to my anxiety not to press the matter. It would have been said I wished to get out of having any investigation at all because it might reflect upon members of the administration or my own followers.
As I say, my hon. friend made no unconditional withdrawal. It was then I introduced the motion, and only then. As a result of the considerate attitude which I took in this house yesterday, what impression has been given to the public in the press of to-day? If hon. members will look at this morning's newspapers, they will see it reported as I have no doubt many of them have, in more than one journal that because the Prime Minister did not proceed with further action yesterday in order to have this matter investigated there were all kinds of murmurings in the corridors, that there were expressions of discontent among his own following and others for his not having gone on with the matter immediately; and the impression would be and I have no doubt has been left in the minds of a large number of persons in this country that I was deliberately seeking to avoid pursuing the matter further. Could I have taken any course to-day other than to demand that at least this matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections, without permanently leaving in the minds of many citizens of Canada the feeling that I had neglected to press this matter further because there were in my own mind reasons which made it inadvisable so to do? It is easy

Privileges of The House
enough to criticize and to say that if a certain course is taken you are persecuting a man; but the very hon. gentlemen who have directed words of that kind to me here are those who had the position been otherwise, would have been saying in this house this afternoon or a little later on that I was the one who had come along very boldly and demanded an investigation but, knowing what I do about the situation generally, I had not pressed the matter later in the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, oh; we never said a word.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is exactly the case. I have been too long in association with some hon. gentlemen opposite not to know that what I say is true; and may I say to my hon. friend' that I think probably he would have been one of those who would have wondered very much, and would have said something about it, if I had not taken the course I have pursued this afternoon.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now I rise to a question of privilege. The right hon. gentleman is transgressing the rules by imputing improper motives to me, and I ask him to take back that statement. When I have anything to say to the Prime Minister I am going to say it here, and I should like to remind him while I am on his feet -


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not intend to convey the impression that I was tramping on the Prime Minister's feet. I am not trying to do that, but I should like him not to forget the fact that subsequently in the course of events the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains did withdraw the very words attributed to him in the French language. So that the Prime Minister got the retraction for which he asked on Monday. I think the Prime Minister should withdraw the imputation against me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend and I are too good friends for me to wish to leave any unfair implication in regard to him. I was only saying what I thought might possibly be the case, but I hope he will believe that I said it in all kindliness.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, no; you do not say these things in that way, in all kindliness. I demand, Mr. Speaker, the unconditional withdrawal of the expression used by the Prime Minister. He said it in order that there might be a sting in it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I have said a good many things to my hon. friend but I do not think I have said many with a view to having a sting in them. I have said some things that I hoped -would serve to remove all stings between us.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would agree with that entirely; very kind words, too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The last thing I would wish at the moment would be to say anything unkind, and if it pleases my hon. friend to have me withdraw unconditionally what I said, I shall do so at this moment, totally and completely.
To come back to the next stage of the matter I was discussing, I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains had his opportunity to withdraw unconditionally before I moved any motion at all. The Speaker had given him the opportunity; but when he rose, instead of withdrawing unconditionally, as I have said, he enlarged his imputation so as to embrace other persons in the public service. It was not until after he sat down, and the house was waiting to see what step I would take, that I brought forward the motion I had prepared this morning, which I intended to introduce this afternoon unless the withdrawal was made. So that there was no haste on my part in moving the motion, and I do not think I can be charged with having pressed this matter unduly or with a desire for persecution. It was only after the hon. member saw that if this motion carried, as without retraction on his part it was certain to carry, he would have to appear before his fellow members of this house and either support what he said or wholly withdraw it, probably with an explanation that he might not have wished to give at this time, that he rose and made a further statement. That statement was made after the hon. member for York-Sunbury had risen to support him in his view that he should not be pressed further. Prior to that time, he had not made an unconditional withdrawal and it was not until the motion was before the house and he saw its consequences that he rose and said he was prepared to withdraw. But he did not withdraw unconditionally even then. All he said was that the expense of holding an inquiry would be too great; he gave as another reason that of the delay and loss of time that would result, and therefore, he said, for these reasons he would withdraw.
If the matter had been allowed to rest there I ask hon. members of this house what would be the next thing we would hear from the hon.
Privileges of The House

member when addressing the people of his own province. He would say that he had withdrawn the statement only to save public money and to save the time of parliament in a period of war. Yet I am now being accused of trying to make a martyr of the hon. member because I wish this matter thoroughly investigated. I have been listening carefully to what has been said from all parts of the house. I have made no request; I have left it to the hon. member himself to say whether he withdraws his statement completely. I do not wish him to say that he is withdrawing to-day at my request. It is a question not of any request on my part but of what he owes to this House of Commons. So I say to him that unless he is prepared to make the statement that his withdrawal is made because of what he feels he owes to this House of Commons, in view of the statement he made, I am not prepared to withdraw my resolution. However, if the hon. member is prepared to say that he withdraws the statement completely because it reflects upon hon. members of this house anc} that he regrets having made it, in the light of the discussion that has taken place here to-day I am quite prepared not to press the motion further. I say the hon. member owes it to this house to make his position perfectly clear in both regards.


Liguori Lacombe: I would ask the Prime Minister to repeat what he said a few moments ago. I could not hear every word of the last statement he made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The statement was very simple. I say to the hon. member I am making no request of him. I am leaving to him, in the light of the statement which His Honour the Speaker has made, of the proper procedure to be followed ip a case where a member has reflected improperly upon other members of the house to be the right course. I suggest to him to rise in his place and declare that what he is saying is to the members of the house, not that it is in compliance with some request of the Prime Minister, and that he regrets having made a statement which has reflected upon hon. members. If he does that I am quite prepared not to press my resolution. I think it is a course which he owes the House of Commons.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a very generous statement.


Liguori Lacombe: It is not at the request of the Prime Minister,* or at the request of any other member of the cabinet, or any other member of the House of Commons, that I

withdraw the following words which I quote from page 4042 of Hansard for June 25, 1943:
Nous avons dans le Gouvernement trois nouveaux millionnaires depuis la declaration de la guerre. Nous les denoneerons en temps et lieu. Les fortunes s'edifient.


Mr. GARDINER:: Finish it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the hon. member, in view of what he has just said, should express his regrets to the house, if he wishes me to withdraw my motion. I would expect him to do that for hon. members because he has reflected upon the membership of this House of Commons. That he should do so is owing to the membership.


Liguori Lacombe: I asked a few moments ago that the Prime Minister repeat the words he spoke so fluently. I understood that he asked me to state in the house that I regret my words. I regret the words, if I have offended any of my colleagues of the House of Commons, or any members of the House of Commons or of the cabinet.


Gordon Graydon: That is fair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask that the motion be withdrawn.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) withdrawn. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).



NEWSPRINT PRICES

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What was the price of newsprint in September, 1939?
2.	What was the basic price in October, 1941?
3.	Has permission been given since to advance the basic price? If so, by what amount, and at what date?
4.	Has an application for a further increase been received? If so, when, and what is the amount of the increase requested?
5.	Has a decision been reached? If so, what is the decision?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	In September, 1939, the generally recognized basic price for standard newsprint in white rolls and in carload lots delivered at New York was $50.00 per ton of 2,000 lbs.
2.	In October, 1941, the basic price had not . changed from that of September, 1939.
3.	Effective on March 1, 1943, the maximum price of newsprint was advanced by $4.00 per ton.
4.	On August 26, 1942, the newsprint administrator of the wartime prices and trade board received from Canadian newsprint com-

Questions
panies an application for an increase in the price of newsprint. Since that time there have been continuing applications and representations from the industry on the question of price. Instead of requesting a specific increase, the industry has adopted the method of submitting cost figures for examination to assist in determining an equitable price that will maintain essential production of newsprint.
5.	Approximately 94 per cent of the total Canadian production of newsprint is exported, (85 per cent to the United States, which represents approximately 75 per cent of their newsprint requirements) and practically all production is controlled by the ceiling price of newsprint in the United States. Frequent discussions are therefore held between the United States and Canadian government authorities in connection with the price and supply of Canadian newsprint. The determination of the domestic price for newsprint must await a decision as to the level of production necessary for essential requirements and the price of newsprint to customers in the United States will depend on the outcome of current discussions with United States government authorities. It is expected that both questions will be answered in the near future.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

Mr. REID:: What provincial governments have made representations since 1940 and up to the 16th of June, 1943, (a) for amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act; (b) for an increase in the amount of pensions?


Mr. ABBOTT:: (a) and (b).
British Columbia
British Columbia has asked that the amount paid to pensioners should be increased but has not requested that the Act be amended.
The province is paying supplemental allowances to pensioners.
Alberta
Alberta has requested an amendment to the act to provide for a maximum pension of one dollar per day and for a pensionable age of 60 years.
The province is paying supplemental allowances to pensioners.
Saskatchewan
In a resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, it was recommended that the dominion should be requested to amend the act to provide for an increase in the maximum pension.
The province has made provision for paying supplemental allowances to pensioners.
Manitoba
The report of a select special committee recommended that the Manitoba government make strong recommendations to the dominion government to the effect that the maximum old age and blind pensions be increased from $240 to $300 a year and that the income limit be changed from $365 to $425 a year, the act to be amended accordingly. The report was concurred in by the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The government of Manitoba recommended to the government of Canada the adoption- and the bringing into force of what was embraced in the report of the select special committee.
The province is paying supplemental allowances to pensioners.
Ontario
Ontario advised the dominion that the matter of increasing pensions had been under consideration by the provincial government and stated that it was hoped that the dominion would participate in such an increase. The province did not request that the act be amended.
The province has announced that it will pay supplemental allowances to pensioners.
New Brunswick
The Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick passed a resolution asking the New Brunswick government to request the dominion government to amend the act to provide for an increase in the maximum pension from $20 to $25 per month.
The province has not indicated what its intention is regarding the payment of supplemental allowances.
Nova Scotia
Nova Scotia requested that the act be amended to increase the basic rate of pension from- $240 to $300 per year.
The province has made provision for paying supplemental allowances.



PUBCHASE OP RED CLOVER SEED IN UNITED STATES

Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	Was red clover seed purchased in the United States by the agricultural supplies board, or any department of the Canadian government, during the last nine months?
2.	If so, how many pounds were purchased?
3.	What price ivas paid per hundred pounds?
4.	Was any duty paid on the imported seed?
5.	If so, how much?
6.	Was the import tax of 10 per cent paid?
Questions

7.	Was payment made in American funds? If so, at what rate of exchange?
8.	What was the total cost to the government per hundred pounds?
9.	What was the price per hundred pounds at which the seed was sold to the Canadian trade?
10.	How many pounds were sold in Quebec, and how many in Ontario?
11.	Who purchased the seed for the dominion government?
12.	Was he paid a commission or straight salary?
13.	If so, in what amount?
14.	What grades of seed were purchased?
15.	How many pounds of each?
16.	Was any Oregon seed purchased?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	787,150 pounds.
3.	Average price per 100 lbs. $29.26 United States funds.
4.	Y'es.
5.	$17,711.03.
6.	Yes.
7.	11 per cent was rate of exchange.
8.	Average cost per 100 lbs. $39.46 Canadian funds.
9.	Average ceiling price per 100 lbs. $29.48.
10. Amount of seed sold in Ontario 248,405 lbs. Amount of seed sold in Quebec 538,307 lbs.
11.	Nelson Young under direction of agricultural supplies board. He had the assistance of Mr. Wm. Ewing of the Wm. Ewing Company, Montreal.
12.	Mr. Young received no compensation other than his regular salary as assistant director, production service, plant products, $4,920.00 per annum. Mr. Wm. Ewing was paid an expense account amounting to $45.88 covering telephone, telegrams, and one trip from Montreal to Ottawa.
13.	See answer to No. 12.
14.	No. 1 seed grade, No. 2 seed grade, No. 3 seed grade.
15.	374,787 pounds of No. 1 seed; 391,820 pounds of No. 2 seed; 20,550 pounds of No. 3 seed.
16.	It is believed that one car amounting to 60,000 pounds, originated in Oregon.



TRUCKS DELIVERING BEER AND COLLECTING EGGS

Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How many trucks delivering beer exclusively have been permitted to operate beyond the thirty-five mile radius?
2.	How many trucks belonging to wholesale produce dealers have been permitted to operate beyond the thirty-five mile radius to collect eggs?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	203. An overall reduction of at least 60 per cent has been effected in the aggregate

mileage of trucks delivering beer. There would be no material advantage in forcing a diversion of any part of the present beer traffic to public truck carriers, which type of vehicle is exempted under Order A-314 from the 35 mile limit, as brewery trucks are specially designed for economic transportation of this product and full loads are carried on both outward and return trips.
2.	126. Permits have been granted in the ordinary course to applicants whose normal operations take them beyond the 35 mile limit where sudh operations do not encroach on districts already served adequately. In addition, trucks authorized to collect "farm produce" are also entitled to collect eggs but information is not available as to how many of these are actually collecting eggs.



INCOME TAX-INSURANCE-CASH SURRENDER VALUE

Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	Does a policy-holder of limited payment life insurance policies have to pay income tax on any part of the cash surrender value when accepted of such policy regardless of the date of issue?
2.	Regardless of date, is such cash surrender value when accepted subject to income tax on reserve or accumulated deferred dividends, if any, or both?
3.	On funds set aside by payment into life insurance policies to buy a deferred annuity, is income tax applicable to cash surrender value when accepted before the annuity begins?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	No.
2.	No, in neither case.
3.	No.



CANADIAN FORCES OVERSEAS-REINFORCEMENTS

Mr. ROY:: Are any conscripts component of the army divisions available for reinforcement to our troops overseas?


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: Personnel
called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act who have not enlisted for general service are not available as overseas reinforcements until the necessary action is taken to extend the scope of their service.



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-VANCOUVER MEATS OFFICER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'NEILL:
1.	Is Mr. J. C. Leaman serving as meats ' officer with the wartime prices and trade board
at Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	If so, how long has he been with the said board?
3.	If not, wras he dismissed, did he resign, or has he been transferred?
4.	If transferred, where is he now located?

National Finance Committee
Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Mr. J. C. Leaman was employed by the wartime prices and trade board on January 27, 1942 as investigator and later became foods officer. On March 27, 1943 he resigned effective June 7, 1943.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.



ALUMINIUM LIMITED


Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Has the government, or any department or official of the government, been approached by the Aluminium Limited with an offer or proposal to make any refund of sums of money in connection with contracts secured early in the war when the price of the company's product is said to have been higher than the prevailing price?
2.	In view of the minister's statement regarding the 'basic price and operation of the escalator clause, as reported at page 3828, Hansard, June 21, 1943, what steps have been taken by the government to recover from the company such sums of money as may represent overcharges for their product?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	No. The Department of Munitions and Supply is not aware that aluminum has been sold to any government at higher than the prevailing price current at the date of delivery of the product.
2.	So far as the Department of Munitions arid Supply is aware, no overcharges have been made by the Aluminum Company of Canada Limited with respect to aluminum ingot sold, and therefore no steps have been taken.
Note:	Refer to page 3828 of Hansardminister's statement on contracts and escalator clause.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Who are the employees who receive over $3,000 a year in the employ of the wartime prices and trade board, and where are they located?
2.	What honorarium, living or other allowance, and travelling expenses, have been paid to each of the said employees since appointment?
3.	Which of said employees are permanent civil servants? Which were appointed under the Civil Service Act?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MONCTON-HALIFAX-CAMPBELLTON
Mr. ISNOR:: 1. How many Canadian National Railway passenger trains are operated daily between Moncton, N.B., and Halifax, N.S.?
2.	With respect to these trains, (a) what are
the numbers or names of each; (b) number of regular stops made by each; (e) mileage between each stop:	(d) total mileage in run;
(e) population of each place of stop; (f) time taken to complete trip; (g) the daily average number of persons reaching Halifax for month of May, 1943?
3.	How many daily trains are running between Moncton, N.B.. and Campbellton, N.B.?
4.	With respect to such trains, (a) what are
the numbers or names of each; (b) number of regular stops made by each; (c) mileage between each stop; (d) total mileage in run; (e) population of each place of stop; (f) time taken to complete trip; (g) the daily average number of persons reaching Campbellton for month of May, 1943?	,



HOUSING-PERMITS TO SENATORS OR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West);
1.	Were there any permits issued to senators or members of the House of Commons for the construction of houses during the period from September 1, 1942, to June 1, 1943?
2.	If so, to whom were permits issued?
3.	In each case, what is the amount of the permit?
4.	Where is the property situated?
5.	Is there any check to keep the construction within the limits of the permit?

Mr. CASTLEDEN:: (a) What quantity of plywood has been purchased by Wartime Housing Limited; (b) what was the total amount paid for this plywood; (c) from what manufacturing firms or agents was this plywood purchased?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. DORION:: For a copy of the minutes and report of the meetings of the national finance committee, which took place in Ottawa on December 9, 1936, and the following days, under the chairmanship of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I explained to the house the other day that these are the minutes of a meeting which, it was agreed between the representatives of the dominion and those of the provinces, would not be made public. For this reason, and other reasons I stated the other day, I have to take exception to the passing of this motion.


Frédéric Dorion: In view of the fact that the other day when this motion was called the first time, the Minister of Finance endeavoured to show that it should be dropped, I believe it is my duty to make just a few remarks in support of the motion. The first reason given by the minister was that an arrangement had been made between
National Finance Committee

the government and the provincial representatives to the effect that the minutes of these meetings should be kept secret. I quote these words of the minister as they are reported at page 3694 of Hansard:
The minutes of the meetings of the national finance committee which took place in Ottawa on December 9, 1936, and the following days, under the chairmanship of the Minister of Finance, were understood to be for the guidance and information of the members of the committee only, and not to be made public.
Further on he said:
But I must take the position, in view of the arrangement with the provinces, thoroughly understood and agreed upon, that the minutes themselves are not producible.
I must say that if there was such an arrangement it cannot bind the House of Commons. My contention is that the people of this country, through the members of the house, have the right to know what is going on in these committees where sometimes very important decisions are made. Furthermore I must say I am informed from reliable sources that there never was such an arrangement between the provinces and the government.
The other reason given by the minister is found in his last remarks, when he said, as reported at page 3696:
To complete the record, I wish to state that in my judgment it is not in the public interest to produce these.
That is, these documents. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have too often been misled by the use of this expression "in the public interest", because the question is not whether it is or is not in the public interest to produce a document but whether its production, would cause injury to the public interest. That is entirely different. I do not think the minister would be ready to state that the production of these documents would cause injury to the public interest.
Further, my contention is that the public would be much interested in knowing what has taken place at these meetings. We find in the "Canadian Annual Review" for 19351936, at page 86, some information about these meetings, and I quote a few lines to show that the public would be very much interested in knowing what went on there:
The first meeting of the national finance committee took place in Ottawa on December 9, 1936, under the chairmanship of the Minister of Finance. The meeting was attended by more than fifty government ministers and officials.
It says further:
At the close of the first session an official communique said that the committee "continued its discussion of the services that could be
[Mr. Dorion.l
rendered by the Bank of Canada to provincial governments, and of the possibilities of a greater degree of coordination in governmental borrowing in Canada."
And further:
Taxation was also brought up with several of the provinces urging that certain sources of revenue exclusive to the dominion should be turned over in a measure to the provinces.
And finally:
In particular it was emphasized that the developments of the last 70 years, especially the increasing activities of governments in the field of social welfare, make it necessary to review the allocation by the British North America Act of sources of revenue and governmental responsibilities to dominion and provincial governments. Further discussions on this question w'ere to take place.
Representatives of the province of Ontario raised the question of overlapping services of government in the field of agriculture, health, labour, etc., and suggested the appointment of a committee of officials to consider this question with a view to reducing the cost of government.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe I am asking something very reasonable, just and fair in asking that this motion be carried.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Vien: This motion is not debatable. I allowed the hon. member to speak in introducing his motion, thinking he was going to speak to a point of order as to why he insisted on the production of the documents.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I should like to speak to the point of order if a point of order has been raised.


Thomas Vien: Standing order 51 states:
Notices of motion for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shall be placed by the Clerk on the order paper above "Notices of Motions" under the heading "Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers". All such notices when called shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, it will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of Motions."


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this not marked with an asterisk?


Thomas Vien: Yes, and therefore it is not debatable. The question has already been before the house, and the minister then took the position that he could not in the public interest produce these documents.
It is true that when a document-


Richard Burpee Hanson: If Your Honour will pardon me, is Your Honour about to give a ruling on the point of order because, if so, I should like to speak to it.

National Finance Committee


Thomas Vien: The hon. member may proceed to speak to the point of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I do wish to speak to the point of order by reason of the circumstances under which the minister took exception the other day to the passing of this motion. I have not his language before me at the moment, but I do not think he took the position then that he is taking to-day. He said to-day that his position was based on an agreement made between the representatives of the provinces and the Minister of Finance that the discussions would be held secret. May I point out to the minister two things. The motion does not call for the evidence taken in these discussions; it calls for a copy of the minutes and a report, I assume, of what was eventually decided. This would be the complete minutes. But the motion does not ask for a report of the discussion. I submit that this is a matter of public importance and that an alleged arrangement to keep that part secret could not possibly be binding on the House of Commons. The minister should not be in the position to make such an arrangement. It is not in the public interest that he should make ' such an arrangement. The minutes are merely a record of the decisions reached. The hon. member does not ask for the evidence; I would not ask for the evidence. But on a matter of such enormous importance as this I submit that the motion is in order and that any arrangement made that was without the jurisdiction of the minister is not binding on the House of Commons.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, there was, so far as I know, no report made to anybody.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then there will be nothing to bring down. That wipes that out.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This motion can mean
nothing unless it means that the stenographic report of the meeting, the minutes and the report, be produced. It was agreed that for the convenience of the press a statement would be given out at the conclusion of each day, and I assume that it is from one of those statements that the hon. member has been reading. I am not sure just what he has been reading from.


Frédéric Dorion: From the "Canadian Annual Review" for 1935 and 1936.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was no doubt based on the reports that were given to the press at the end of each day. I stated on a previous occasion that I would have no objection to producing those, but I assume that the hon.
member would not be satisfied with that because they are already public property.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is all he is asking for, technically.


James Lorimer Ilsley: His motion has no meaning unless it calls for the production of the stenographic report and the minutes, and that I am not at liberty to produce.


Gordon Graydon: If I may speak to the point of order, during the last discussion in connection with this matter, the point was raised, either by the hon. member for York-Sunbury or myself, as to the necessity of the minister laying upon the table of the house the report and the minutes which he had in his hand. He read from that report and those minutes a certain excerpt, and having done so, he was then, according to the rules of the house, under obligation to table the document. That is as many hon. members, I believe, interpret the rules. The minister then objected, and, adding another string to his bow, he said that if he had inadvertently stumbled into this position he wanted to object to the tabling of the document because, he said, it was not in the public interest.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Neither it is.


Gordon Graydon: I have the Hansard reference here. The first ground he took was that of confidentiality; in other words, he contended that it, being a matter of agreement between those representing the provinces and the dominion, was not a producible document and should not be in the public hands. Then, after I had summoned to my aid the long experience and intimate knowledge of the rules of the Prime Minister, who on this occasion at any rate found himself in agreement with me, the Minister of Finance shifted his ground.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I did not.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps I should not say he shifted his ground, because one thing the Minister of Finance does not do is shift very far.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish to ask the hon. member whether he thinks it is in the public interest to break agreements with provinces.


Gordon Graydon: The minister realizes that I cannot say there has been an agreement between the provinces and the dominion. But if my hon. friend wants to ask me that question, I will ask him if he does not think that he himself was breaking that very trust when he read part of that document.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I certainly was not.
National Finance Committee


Gordon Graydon: That is why the rules provide that, where there is a confidential document, neither the minister nor anyone else must read from it. If I am to answer the question which the minister has now raised, I will say the answer is in the minister's hands. He himself admitted that it could not have been a confidential document; otherwise he himself should not have read from it. I realize the minister committed an error.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think I did.


Gordon Graydon: The minister for years has never been very good at admitting any errors.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not admit one here.


Gordon Graydon: I am not going to press the matter because I do not think there is any particular point in it, though I still have my qwn ideas. The minister himself said, "if he had inadvertently stumbled". You do not stumble unless you have made some little mistake. Having added ground to the position he originally took, it seems to me that he weakened the first one. The more you add to your first argument, the weaker, I think, the original becomes. However, I do not say that we can afford to be too technical about these matters. But this comes within the purview of a policy which the government is pursuing far too often. Confidence is not being shown to the house to the degree to which we are entitled, and here is one of the examples. The minister himself will recall that only a few weeks ago we had another instance of it. I want to show the fallacy of all these arguments about public interest. A motion was made for the adoption of the report of the advisory committee on the civil service headed by Mr. H. J. Coon. With respect to the tabling of that committee's minutes and report the minister took a parallel position to the one he is now taking. The one case coming on top of the other, it seems to me that this house must rise up and object to the situation. On that particular occasion the minister pointed out that this, of course, was a confidential report; that it should not be tabled because it had all the elements of confidentiality.


Mr. GOLDING:: The hon. member is referring now to a debate which has already taken place this session.


Gordon Graydon: Oh, well, now-


William Henry Golding: I rise to a point of order.


Gordon Graydon: I am going to start my own debate on this occasion and I am not going to worry about the one that has gone by. This has a direct bearing on this particular
TMr. Ilsley.]
debate, or I would not have mentioned it. When this was submitted to the house the minister found he was not able to command the support even of all his own colleagues with respect to the vote on that particular occasion. But coming after that-and I think we may take the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as an experienced parliamentarian; I have always regarded him as such, and I hold his knowledge of the house rules in high respect-when I asked him on June 11, 1943, about tabling the report of the national advisory committee on agriculture, having always felt that these reports should be tabled and that there was no breach of the public interest in tabling them, the Minister of Agriculture, when I asked "If the committee makes a report I suppose it could be tabled?" said, "I would think so." I heartily agree with that. That, coming on the heels of the Minister of Finance's position as taken only a couple of weeks before, seems to me to indicate how untenable his position is.
So far as this motion is concerned it is a parallel motion to that which has been up in the house before. In view of the principle involved, I think we as an opposition ought to take strong objection to a repetition of this attitude, if it is to be similar to that which was taken in respect of the advisory committee on civil service matters. On that occasion there could have been just two things the minister had in mind. Either the Coon report contained some kind of recommendation which the government was going to adopt and take credit for, or it contained recommendations of which the government would not avail themselves and which they did not want published so that the opposition or any other interested parties might use those recommendations in the house or out of it.
This motion, in my opinion, should be passed. I cannot see how the Minister of Finance can properly object. He has lost all bis grounds for valid objection to the carrying of this motion, and I ask him to allow it to be adopted.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: On the point of order, may I suggest to the leader of the opposition that he is completely in error in his interpretation of the rules with respect to citing a document. If we refer to Beauchesne, third edition, marginal note 278, at page 111, we find:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the house, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.
The Minister of Finance, when we discussed this point the other day, specifically said it was not in the public interest, so that

National Finance Committee
that rule overrides the ordinary parliamentary rule of producing documents which are cited.
In regard to the general principle underlying a confidential document or documents which it is not considered to be in the public interest to produce to the house, I refer my hon. friend to Todd on "Parliamentary Government," at page 440, where he cites no less an authority than Disraeli, whose word my hon. friend should accept. The minister, in this, has complete jurisdiction; when he states to the house that it is not in the public interest to produce these documents, that ends the matter.


Mr. POULIOT:: Speaking not to the point of order, but rising to a question of privilege, as a member of the house I am interested in having a copy of that public paper. That, in the first place, is what I have to say in rising to a question of privilege. In the second place, I want to know what is meant by the words, "public interest." I want a definition of these words, which are used so often by ministers as an excuse for not tabling or producing certain papers. It is quite easy for a minister to say that something is not in the public interest; but what is the norm,; what is the rule; what is the definition of public interest, and who decides that question? Is there a minister who can decide against the will of a certain number of members that it is not in the public interest to table certain papers? I submit that it is most important for us to know exactly where we stand on this, so that we may know what is meant by the government whenever such an answer is given.
In the third place, I hear at times amendments to motions to the effect that the government will accept a certain motion with certain reservations. The minister makes a reservation. What does that mean? I remember distinctly a typical case, relating to the station at Riviere du Loup, where the question was about the tabling of certain papers, and I wondered if the correspondence was to be made personal after it had been received. As I have mentioned before in the house many times, letters marked confidential or personal are sometimes sent to a minister, merely to bring them to the attention of that minister, but the subject matter is not personal. If hon. members will take the trouble to go back to the records of 1931, they will see what was said at that time by the then Prime Minister Mr. Bennett, and- also by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as well as by Mr. Lapointe, with regard to the impossibility of changing the nature of a communication after it had been received.
In this case, what is asked for by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay is the discussion that took place, not between officials of the department alone, but between Ottawa and the provinces, and if there is one thing which we are interested in and with regard to which we ought to be fully informed, it is the relations of the provinces with Ottawa, especially on the eve of the Sirois report. The Sirois report was not down then, and it is of the utmost interest not only to the member for Temiscouata but to every one of us to know exactly what was discussed on that occasion and what were the views put forward by the representatives of the provinces and of Ottawa, and the more so by reason of the resume which the sponsor of the resolution read to the house a minute ago. These are matters of vital importance for all of us, and for that reason I have risen to a question of privilege.


Thomas Vien: In this matter, which has already been before the house, the hon. the minister, as reported at page 3696 of Hansard, stated:
To complete the record, I wish to state that in my judgment it is not in the public interest to produce these.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) made the argument that because the Minister of Finance had referred to some excerpts from *the report, therefore he was bound to produce the report; but in this instance the Minister of Finance was not founding an argument or proving an assertion; he was simply stating from that report the reason why the report should not be produced. Therefore, in my judgment, the Minister of Finance is not bound to table the report by reason of the fact that he made references to an excerpt from it.
There is confusion as to the question of public interest, to which the hon. member for Temiscouata has referred. The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) referred to Todd. Todd says, at page 440 of volume 1, "Parliamentary Government in England", that:
Consideration of public policy and a due regard to the interests of the state occasionally demand that information sought for by members of parliament should be withheld at the discretion and upon the general responsibility of ministers.
It is a mistake to believe that as long as a paper deals with a public question, parliament has the right to see it. Memoranda, letters or drafts submitted to a minister by his officer in the preparation of a government measure or ministerial statements, though they deal with public matters, are not in the category of official documents which ministers are bound to lay before the house.
National Finance Committee

They are written for the minister's information and they are subject to his approval. Until they are approved by him or by the governor in council they must be regarded as unofficial. Todd, quoting Lord C. Paget, adds, at page 442:
The system of laying upon the table of the house reports from officers addressed to particular departments of the executive government is most objectionable.
He also quotes Disraeli, saying:
The house ought not to insist upon the production of papers and correspondence which concerned the preparation and preliminary consideration of measures; they would thereby put a stop to that freedom of criticism which was always invited on such occasions, and which contributed so much to the perfection of public measures. If the house were to insist upon the production of such documents, instead of the government getting what we get now, confidential reports containing the most minute details of the opinions of officers, given frankly and freely for the heads of departments, we shall have a system of reports framed for laying upon the table of the House of Commons.
Todd concludes, at page 440:
This principle is systematically recognized in all parliamentary transactions; rvere it otherwise, it would be impossible to carry on the government with safety and honour.
The minister, as reported at page 3696 of Hansard, said that he did not wish to produce these papers because in his judgment it was not in the public interest to do so. The responsibility is the minister's for making that statement. He is the best judge of the matter and the Chair must be bound by such a statement. I therefore rule that the document should not be tabled.


Frédéric Dorion: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that my motion is out of order? If so, I appeal from your ruling.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-CLEAR TITLE TO LANDS HELD UNDER CONTRACT

Robert Fair: For a copy of all letters, telegrams or other communications received by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Mines and Resources, the soldier settlement board, or any other department of government from January 1, 1943, to date, asking that soldier settlers still on the land be given clear titles to their lands held under contract from the soldier settlement board.



INQUIRY AS TO ARRANGEMENTS IN REGARD TO

[Stage Direction]
1942-43 and 1943-44 crops
On the orders of the day:
George Hugh Castleden: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, arising out of the emergency condition facing the western farmer to-day, in that hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat are still in storage on the farms, with the prospect of another crop coming on in six or seven weeks. Will the 1942 wheat quota be taken in by August 1, and what arrangements are being made for the delivery, the storage and payments in connection with the 1943 crop?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am advised that present facilities are sufficient to provide for the remainder of the undelivered quota for the 194243 crop, and that the total amount will be taken by the end of July. I know of no circumstances that would suggest the need for changes in the existing regulations for the handling of the 1943-44 crop, but if conditions should develop making such changes necessary, they will be announced.


George Hugh Castleden: How about the storage? There is a great deal of wheat beyond the quota out there at the present time, and there is no farm storage available for any further surplus. I should like to know what arrangements will be made, so that it will be possible for the farmers to get something with which to make bins.


Thomas Vien: Order. These are questions which should be placed on the order paper.



ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION IN PLACEMENT OF CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce received any complaints from w-estern Canada that there is discrimination as between the pool elevators and other line elevators, in the placement of cars, at many of the points where they have not been able to deliver the full quota?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think I have heard of any charges of discrimination against the pools. I have had requests from many sources that a different basis of allocating the cars be instituted, but I do not think the wheat board are suggesting any different allocation.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battleford): Newspaper reports to-day mention the arrest on June 21 of a man by the name of Crate, who was formerly a leader of the Canadian union of fascists, an illegal organization. About a year ago, I believe, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked the Minister of Justice a question with regard to the activities of this man, but that question was, I think, somewhat summarily dismissed. This man has just now been arrested, a year later. My information is that during this period he has been working on government projects both in Newfoundland and in Alaska. Will the minister make a statement as to how a known leader of a fascist organization in this country could obtain permits, and why he should be allowed to travel in vital defence areas, when it has been known by the police all this while what were his aims and objectives?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I will have inquiries made into the facts concerning this man and obtain such information as will enable me to determine whether or not I can make any communication to the house.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I am sorry I did not. have an opportunity to give him notice of it, but I received my information by air mail while I was in the house voting on the matter under discussion a few moments ago. If the information. I have been given is correct, under C.A.R.O. 3111 troops while on. twenty-four or forty-eight hour leave are not allowed to work, say at haying or other harvest work, if they are to receive remuneration. I wish to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that my question deals with an emergency. I am not suggesting that these
War Appropriation-Labour

men should be released from training in, order to assist in harvesting, but if they do work of this kind while they are on these short leaves, are the farmers not allowed to pay them?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: There is a general order that troops may not be paid twice, once by the army and then by someone else, but I shall look into this particular question, and give my hon. friend and the house a prompt answer.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 29, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to his majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN:: The committee is considering item No. 7.


Mr. GREEN:: Mr. Chairman, the item
under consideration this afternoon is for the removal of enemy aliens, including Japanese nationals, and other persons of Japanese race, from protected areas in British Columbia. The amount of the vote is $3,000,000. Last year, according to the records, the vote for this purpose was $4,575,000. I take it there is no doubt that the vote is really to enable the British Columbia security com,mission to carry on its work for the present fiscal year. The money will be expended to maintain people of Japanese origin living in Canada- people, by the way, who were formerly selfsupporting. So that we are now in the position that the Japanese problem has touched the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada from coast to coast. For the first time since the Japanese came to Canada it has become a matter of some interest to Canadians east of the Rockies, and the Japanese first came, in any large numbers, almost fifty years ago.
The people of British Columbia hope that now, at long last, this Japanese problem will be dealt with as a Canadian problem, rather than as a problem of British Columbia. The people of that province have always been the pawns-and I repeat that word-have always been the pawns in the dealings between Canada and Japan. They found themselves in that unfortunate position for the first time shortly after the Japanese started coming to Canada, in fact, before the turn, of the century. in 1898. In that year, the legislature of

British Columbia passed what was known, as the labour regulation act, the purpose of which was to prevent the employment of Chinese or Japanese persons on works carried on under franchise granted by private acts of the provincial legislature. That measure was passed because the Chinese and Japanese were then coming into British Columbia in large numbers and were interfering with white labour in the province. It was disallowed by the dominion government.
The reason for the disallowance is set out on page 70 of a memorandum entitled "Dominion Power of Disallowance of Provincial Legislation," issued by the king's printer in 1938. The reason given is as follows:
The act affects not only the relations between the dominion and Japan but also the relations of the empire with the latter country. Further, power of legislature to enact statutes affecting the rights of aliens not free from doubt.
That disallowance by the dominion government was made after there had been-and, by the way, this is a vital question to the people of British Columbia, and I would ask the Minister of Labour to listen. He may have a lot of heartaches over this Japanese problem, before he is through.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, in view of the hon. member's observations I believe I should explain that I was just looking up what the policy of the United States government had been toward, the Japanese, so that I might reply to the hon. member.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee met at eight o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, before the dinner recess I was pointing out that the people of British Columbia have high hope that the Japanese problem will now be considered a problem of the whole Canadian people, and furthermore that the people of that province have been the pawns in the dealings between Canada and Japan. I went on to point out that the first time they found themselves in that unhappy position was in the year 1898, when the dominion government vetoed a bill passed by the British Columbia legislature known as the labour regulation act, which in effect provided that Chinese and Japanese could not be employed on works being carried on under franchise granted by private acts of the provincial legislature. It is interesting to read the correspondence that

War Appropriation-Labour
took place in connection with that disallowance. One finds a letter from the Japanese consul in Vancouver to the governor general, complaining about the British Columbia act. Then one finds correspondence between the governor general and the colonial secretary, who was no other than the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain. One also finds a dispatch from Mr. Chamberlain to the governor general, dated the 20th of July, 1898, which began-I am quoting from "Provincial Legislation, 1896 to 1920", volume 2, at page 542:
My Lord, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatches of the numbers and dates noted in the margin, in which you forwarded copies of various communications received by you from the Japanese consul for Canada respecting the anti-Japanese legislation recently passed by the legislature of British Columbia.
The second paragraph asks that various documents be forwarded to Mr. Chamberlain, and the third paragraph, which is the significant one, reads:
In the meantime I have to request that you will impress on your ministers-
That is, upon the dominion ministers.
-that restrictive legislation of the type of which the legislation in question appears to be, is extremely repugnant to the sentiments of the people and government of Japan, and you should not fail to impress upon them the importance-
Here is where Mr. Chamberlain showed the Canadian government the way out:
-you should not fail to impress upon them the importance, if there is any real prospect of a large influx of Japanese labourers into Canada, of dealing with it by legislation of the dominion parliament on the lines of the accompanying Natal Act, which is likely to be generally adopted in Australia.
He enclosed a copy of the Natal Act, and by the way that act was adopted in Australia and as a result Australia went into this war with Japan with fewer than 2,400 Japanese in the whole Australian commonwealth, while in British Columbia alone we had almost 24,000.
The effective portion of the Natal Act is in section 3, subsection (a). Section 3 deals with prohibited immigrants, and subsection (a) reads as follows:
Any person who, when asked to do so by an officer appointed under this act, shall fail to himself write out and sign, in the characters of any language of Europe, an application to the colonial secretary in the form set out in schedule B of this act. . . .
Joe Chamberlain suggested to the dominion government in 1898 that it should pass a Natal act. Had that been done, there would to-day be no Japanese problem facing Canada. But for some reason or another the dominion government failed to pass a Natal act. The British Columbia government, when it found that it got no help from the dominion, itself had a Natal act passed through the legislature in 1900 entitled, "an act to regulate immigration into British Columbia", and it contained a European language test of the type set out in the Natal Act.
Again there was correspondence. The Japanese consul wrote in to the governor general; correspondence with the colonial secretary followed, and in due course, in 1901, the act was disallowed by the dominion government.
Again, in 1902, the British Columbia legislature passed the same act, and again it was disallowed by the dominion government. In 1903 they passed the same act for the third time, and again it was disallowed. In 1904 the act was passed again by the British Columbia legislature. During all this time the letters from the Japanese consul were becoming more insistent. We find this in his letter in 1904. I quote from page 645 of the same volume:
I see no reason why the British Columbia legislature is so very persistent in taking such high-handed and unfriendly measures against the Japanese people, and why this act should be tolerated-
Tolerated, mind youl
-to any length of time, without being disallowed.
Well, the dominion government disallowed it in 1904. Again in 1905 the British Columbia legislature passed the same act, and it was disallowed. In 1908, for the sixth time, the British Columbia legislature passed the same act, and it was duly disallowed by the dominion government.
About that time there were riots in Vancouver. The Japanese had been coming in by the thousands, and riots broke out. As a result, the dominion government negotiated a gentlemen's agreement with Japan which was known as the Lemieux act, and which by the way has not yet been tabled in this house. Under that agreement 400 Japanese labourers were allowed to come into Canada each year. Subsequently, in 1929, a variation in the agreement was negotiated which reduced that number to 150. All this time the Japanese were coming in.
I have no intention now of going into the reasons why the British Columbia people fought the entry of the Japanese. The house has heard them many times, and I shall not repeat them to-night. During all these years British Columbia members of parliament without, I think, one exception, have been pleading with the other members of this house for help in facing this Japanese problem. I have been
War Appropriation-Labour

a member of this house since 1935, and I have heard these pleas and have made them myself since coming here.
In 1938 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni brought in a bill which would have made the Chinese Immigration Act apply to the Japanese. In 1923 the house did pass an act which excluded the Chinese. That is twenty years ago, and in 1938 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni brought in a bill to put the Japanese under that act. It was duly voted down. He also brought in a bill to amend the general immigration act, to provide a Natal act language test. That, too, was voted down in this house. We were met with the excuse: Oh, Japan must not be offended. In other words, it was an appeasement policy toward the Japanese. At the same time the Canadian government was allowing scrapiron to be shipped out to Japan, which is now finding its -place in the bodies of the young men of the united nations.
Therefore I repeat, the people of British Columbia have always been pawns in the dealings between Canada and Japan, and now in 1943 there are signs that the government policy, or lack of policy, will make them pawns again. The people of my native province are watching developments with grave concern. They will not agree with the light-hearted optimism of the Minister of Labour when he said the other night, as reported in Hansard at page 4015, when he was being questioned about the Doukhobors:
I remember that last year-I wanted to say this on another occasion-
And he said these words with a good deal of boasting in his voice:
-the Department of Labour received a great deal of criticism about the Japanese problem. I think in a large measure we have solved it for the time being.
May I tell him, the House of Commons, and the rest of Canada that actually he has barely scratched the Japanese problem, let alone solving it. In order that the committee may see the situation, I propose to give a few facts.
Practically all the Japanese who came to Canada settled in British Columbia. If they had not done so; if they had scattered out across Canada, there probably would have been no Japanese problem to-day. But they did not. They knew a good place when they saw it, and they settled in British Columbia, practically all of them in the coastal area. Of course there has been uneasiness in that province for many years, and particularly so when Japan became friendly with Germany and Italy. There was a registration of Japanese, and in 1941, as a result of a recommenda-

tion from a committee which had been appointed by the government, there was a re-registration.	Here are the numbers of
Japanese then found in the province:	I
am quoting now from a booklet entitled "Removal of Japanese from Protected Areas." It is a report issued by the British Columbia security commission and distributed among the members this year. I quote from page 3; here are the numbers as found by this Royal Canadian Mounted Police registration:
Canadian -born	 6,727
Naturalized	 7,011
Nationals (the largest group)		9,758
United States citizens	 16
Total	 23,512
In proportion to population British Columbia had twice as many Japanese as the state of California, which is the state of the union having the largest number of Japanese. Our population in 1941 was approximately 820,000. The state of California had a population of 6,910,000, eight times as large as our own; on the other hand they had 93,717 Japanese, which is only four times the number of Japanese we had. The population of Washington, our neighbour state, numbers 1,740,000, a little over twice our population, but it contains only 14,565 Japanese, about two-thirds as many as we had. The state of Oregon, which is the third Pacific state, contains
1,090,000	people, slightly more than the population- of British Columbia, but it has only one-sixth as many Japanese.
The registration disclosed another very interesting fact. I note on page 29 of this booklet that in addition to these 23,512 Japanese, there were 1,500 children in Japan of Japanese families registered in British Columbia under this registration. Most of these young Japanese, I believe, would have been able in due course to return- to Canada, because their parents are here. There has been a custom among the Japanese of sending back many of their young people for education in Japan. It has -been said that in many cases they went there for military or naval training, and I have no doubt that to-day some of these children of British Columbia Japanese are members of the armed forces of Japan. Others are children left in Japan by their parents; some, no doubt, children left with the mother when the father came to Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend said that some of these children no doubt are members of armed forces in Japan. Is he speaking of Japan, or does he mean, in the Dominion of Canada?

War Appropriation-Labour


Howard Charles Green: No, no; I say that, of these 1,500 Japanese children whose parents are in Canada, I have no doubt that some at least are serving in the armed forces of Japan.


Humphrey Mitchell: In Japan.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know where they are. They may be in the Aleutians, or they may be down in the southern Pacific.


Thomas Reid: We had Japanese who boasted that their boys were in the air force in Japan.


Howard Charles Green: This re-registration was in the spring of 1941. At that time Japan was a member of the axis. I remember very well a ship leaving Vancouver for Japan late in that year, carrying several hundred Japanese who, it was admitted, were strongly pro-Japanese and were getting out of the country before trouble started. We were spending money putting up guns and otherwise preparing for war with Japan; but all that time Japanese were living around these forts, near our airports, and scattered up and down our coastline where they could, if they wished, be of great help to an invading army. In October, 1941-on the 27th, to be exact-our Canadian boys sailed out of the port of Vancouver bound for Hong Kong on that ill-fated expedition. On December 7, 1941, Japan struck treacherously at Pearl Harbor. That was followed, of course, by the attack on Hong Kong and by the surrender of our troops there on Christmas day. On the Pacific coast no one knew whether or when Japan might attack; no one knew what the Japanese living there would do in the event of attack, and no one knew which Japanese could be trusted and which could not. So that it was only natural that in Canada, as in the United States, there was insistence that all Japanese be moved away from the Pacific coast. It was not a matter of persecution; it was a matter perhaps of life and death for the Canadian people. That situation is clearly expressed in this report of the removal of the Japanese:
The government of Canada took no further definite action until public sentiment became inflamed and the members of parliament from this province became so vehement in their denunciation, and the press so vociferous in its expression of indignation that finally, faced with the necessity of establishing some security against possible attack from within as well as without, on March 4, 1942, the government of Canada issued privy council order Nos. 1665 and 1666 creating the British Columbia security commission, whose primary duty was to evacuate all persons of the Japanese race from certain strategic areas of British Columbia which had previously been declared "protected"-
Then the paragraph reads:
-by order in council No. 365.
But I think it should be " pursuant to order in council No. 365."
Actually the protected area was defined on February 2 last year. It covered a strip approximately 100 miles back from the coast, as well as the whole of Vancouver island and the Queen Charlotte islands and an area in southeastern British Columbia in the district of Kootenay. Since then, I believe, there has been an area added near the city of Kamloops. On March 4 of last year the British Columbia security commission was set up.
Eventually last fall practically all the Japanese were removed from the protected area. For that I give due credit to the minister, to his staff and to the British Columbia security commission. The Japanese were moved, with the exception, I believe, of about 100. I got a return this spring which showed that there were fifty-four persons still in the protected area, most of them being either the husband or the wife where there had been intermarriage between Japanese and occidentals.
But it is interesting to note what has happened to these evacuees, and this is the key point. I have here a statement from the Department of Labour showing the location of Japanese in Canada as at May 27, 1943, a little over a month ago; it shows first of all that there were 2,439 who had settled outside the restricted area prior to the setting up of the British Columbia security commission. Some of the Japanese saw what was coming and packed up and left. Most of the 2,400 had settled in the riding of Yale and Kamloops, in central British Columbia. That leaves 21,236. Of that number, 606 are interned somewhere in eastern Canada. There are, I believe, more Japanese interned than members of any other nationality. Most of the remainder, 15,562 or over three-quarters, are still in British Columbia. They are located on a temporary basis in relocation centres in the interior of our province. This statement shows that there are in interior housing centres 11,960, made up as follows: Tashme, which is in the riding of Fraser Valley, 2,571; Greenwood, in the Yale riding, 1,199; Sandon, 844; Slocan area, 2,817; Lemon Creek, 1,875; Kaslo, 906; New Denver area, 1,748. All these last five centres are in the Kootenay West riding. These people are living in these centres. There are block-houses on the roads a certain distance from the centre where special police attached to the mounted police see that the Japanese do not go past the block-house. They are being maintained largely by the dominion government, and they are largely unproductive and have been throughout. There is now some suggestion that they are
War Appropriation-Labour

to be used in cutting wood. They have been cutting wood for themselves and doing odd jobs of that type such as raising vegetables and so on, but they are largely unproductive and are being maintained by the government.
The next group are in what are called the self-supporting projects in British Columbia, and they total 1,290. Of this number, 108 are in Christina Lake in Yale riding; 336 in Lillooet; 333 in Minto City; 263 in Bridge River; 67 in McGillivray Falls, and 183 in Taylor Lake, all in the Cariboo riding. These are Japanese with funds of their own; they are keeping themselves, but they are largely unproductive.
There are 781 in road camps in the province; 210 on the Blue River-Yellowhead road in the Kamloops riding; 293 on the Revelstoke-Sicamous road in the same riding and 278 on the Hope-Princeton road. These are largely Japanese nationals, and they have not made very much progress in the building of roads, one reason being that they have not had sufficient equipment. Then there are listed 1,531 under the head of British Columbia placements. Of that number, 1,376 have permits for employment. They, I presume, are working in the woods and in the mills or in orchards in the interior, largely in Kamloops and Yale; twenty-one in hospital; two in gaol; 132 Eurasian; making a total of 15,562 in British Columbia, or over three-quarters of the evacuees. Practically all of them are settled on a temporary basis.
The remainder, 5,607, which is slightly less than a quarter, are east of the Rockies, and that is all that are east of the Rockies, except, of course, for those who are interned.
The figures for the prairies and eastern placements are: Alberta, 2,664, largely on sugar beet farms; Saskatchewan, 54; Manitoba, 1,093, also largely on sugar beet farms; Ontario, in industry, 1,119; road camp 36, giving a total of 1,155; I do not know how many but quite a number of these are on sugar beet farms in Ontario; and Quebec, 101.
Practically all the evacuated Japanese in Alberta and Manitoba and most of those in Ontario are likewise temporarily settled. They are settled subject to an express agreement between the dominion government, acting through the British Columbia security commission, and the respective provincial governments, that they shall be removed after the war. I have here sessional paper 126 brought down on May 6 of this year, and we find this paragraph in the agreement with Alberta:
10. The commission agrees to remove or to have removed from the province, upon the termination of the state of war now existing between Canada and Japan, the Japanese temporarily placed or maintained within the province, pursuant to the terms of this agreement as requested so to do by the province.
The Manitoba government was not quite so particular about getting an agreement, and it has a letter from the chairman of the British Columbia security commission, paragraph 10 of which reads:
We agree to remove from your province any Japanese placed therein through this commission upon the termination of the state of war now existing between Canada and Japan.
I understand that there is an agreement in identically the words of the Alberta agreement, duly signed and executed between the British Columbia security commission and the province of Ontario, and apparently there are to be still more agreements of that type, because on February 5 of this year the government passed order in council P.C. 946 which will be found at page 359 of volume 1, number 6 of Canadian War Orders and Regulations, 1943. It is entitled, "Order in Council Establishing Regulations re Provision for the Administration Relative to Further Placement, Control and Maintenance of Persons of Japanese Race in Canada." It provides for allowing the commissioners to resign-the gentlemen who had formed the security commission-and in their place it sets up a commissioner of Japanese placement who is now in charge of the whole scheme. Paragraph 10 of the order in council reads:
The minister may enter into an agreement on behalf of the government of Canada with the government of any province relative to the placement in such province of persons of the Japanese race and any such agreement may provide that any such persons will be removed from such province upon the termination of the state of war now existing between Canada and Japan.
These evacuees have been settled temporarily everywhere, and I doubt very much if there are many of them who will not be subject to this provision for removal after the war. As I say, they have been temporarily settled in different parts of Canada, but principally in British Columbia. Before considering the effect of this and suggesting what should be done about it, I should like to point out certain other features of this Japanese problem to the members of the committee.
The first is that there is great reluctance on the part of the Japanese to cross the mountains. They are not helping themselves by that attitude, but such is the case. On May 24, 1943, an answer was given to a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. 

War Appropriation-Labour
Maclnnis), and I quote one paragraph, as reported at page 2929 of Hansard as follows:
7. There has been reluctance on the part of certain groups among the Japanese in the interior housing centres to take work east of the Rockies, but this is gradually declining.
It must be admitted that some of the younger Japanese and the more forward looking of the group have come east and are trying to reestablish themselves. For this they deserve great credit, and the department deserves credit for helping them. But speaking by and large there is great reluctance among the Japanese to leave British Columbia.
The second feature is that many of the Japanese have voluntarily expressed a desire to be repatriated to Japan at the earliest possible moment. Press dispatches have stated that in the camp at Tashme, where there are about 2,600, approximately 600 have expressed the wish to be sent back to Japan. Other dispatches have stated that there are 1,600 in the different centres who would like to go back to Japan. I ask the minister to tell us during the discussion how many Japanese have expressed this wish; what progress has been made with arrangements for them to be repatriated, and when it is expected that they will be leaving. On February 8, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling), the Prime Minister said that negotiations were under way for the exchange of nationals but had not been completed.


Humphrey Mitchell: Forty-three have been repatriated in exchange for Canadians, and there are some hundreds of Japanese who desire to be repatriated.


Howard Charles Green: How many hundreds?


Humphrey Mitchell: Several hundred.


Howard Charles Green: The minister must know how many. If he does not, he should, because he has all his officers with him to-night.


Humphrey Mitchell: The mere fact that a man says that he would like to go back to Japan does not mean that three months from now he will be willing to go back.


Howard Charles Green: Are you going to give them a chance to change their minds and stay here? Is that what this means?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am referring to the trend of the war. There may not be any Japan left when we are through.


Howard Charles Green: The third special feature I should like to draw to the attention of the committee is the fact that the Japanese government considers these people to be Japanese. There is published in Kaslo, one of the relocation centres in British Columbia, a paper known as The New Canadian, which is published by the nisei; that is second generation Japanese who have been born in Canada. The edition of March 27, 1943, carries a news dispatch from Vancouver which is captioned and reads as follows:
Sends Sympathy and Message of Hope
In a statement last week-end the Spanish consul-general in Montreal said he had been requested by the Japanese government to advise the Japanese in Canada "that the house of representatives in Japan approved a resolution on February 27, to express their maximum sympathy for all the compatriots residing in enemy countries and to send in the name of the whole nation a message of hope."
And I would remind hon. members that a few years ago the Japanese government took a census of Japanese living in Canada.
The fourth special feature is the fact that we are getting along very nicely in the protected areas without the Japanese. There were about 2,000 Japanese in the fishing industry, but I find the following in the May Fisheries News Bulletin, published by the Department of Fisheries:
2,000 Japanese Out but B.C. Fishermen Increase
More than 2,000 people of Japanese descent held commercial fishing licences in British Columbia in 1941 and none at all in 1942 but, nevertheless, the total number of licences issued in the latter year showed an increase of nearly 1,800.
The final special feature concerns the fact that many*of these Japanese are naturalized. I have no doubt that some of these naturalizations were genuine; that those applying really wished to become Canadian citizens, but on the other hand many applications were made in order to secure fishing licences. As far back as 1900 a commission was appointed by the dominion government to look into the Chinese and Japanese situation, and the report of the commission will be found in the sessional papers of 1902, from which I quote as follows:
The evidence made it clear that the larger number of Japanese become naturalized, not to become citizens of the country, but to enable them to obtain fishermen's licences. Nearly the entire number of Japanese who have become naturalized, take out fishing licences, and but few of those who do not take out licences become naturalized.
That is the picture, and the British Columbia security, commission have summed it up very neatly in the report from which I have quoted already. I quote again from page 18, as follows:
_ It is evident, therefore, that the now most important angle of the Japanese problem in Canada-relocation in self-supporting family units-is a matter for parliamentary and gov-
War Appropriation-Labour

ernment decision, and definitely an issue to be faced in due course by the country at large. The people of all parts of Canada should come to realize their war-time obligation in connection with the Japanese evacuees, and to recognize that their cooperation will, to a great extent, remove the necessity of the present relocation centres, now operated mainly at the expense of the already heavily-burdened taxpayers.
In conclusion it may be said that the foregoing summary of this first episode of the saga of an industrious people lifted from the fields of activity to which they had been accustomed, and placed in comparative idleness in interior towns, depicts no permanent static condition, but is believed to be only the frontispiece to the still unfolding story of the final relocation and rehabilitation of the whole Japanese-Canadian population.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I must inform the hon. member he has spoken for forty minutes.


Howard Charles Green: I make it a rule not to encroach upon the good-will of hon. members, but I would appreciate the privilege of finishing, because this is of such vital importance to us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Humphrey Mitchell: Go ahead.


Howard Charles Green: What is the policy of the government? These agreements containing the provision to remove the Japanese from the other provinces after the war, this order in council giving the Minister of Labour the power to enter into new agreements containing the same terms, point to a .gossible attempt to send all Japanese back to British Columbia after the war. Of course that would mean also that the policy will be to leave there the other three-quarters who are now in British Columbia. I warn the government just as emphatically as I possibly can that if this attempt is made, there will be grave trouble in British Columbia. The ministry might as well realize that at once. In effect, such a policy would mean that the government is still looking upon the Japanese problem as a problem for British Columbia, rather than for Canada as a whole; that British Columbia is still a pawn, and she does not propose to be that any longer.
If such an attempt is made by the government; if that is the policy; if these agreements to remove these people from the other provinces are the best the government can do; if the rest of Canada-and here is the main point-is unwilling to do its part in settling this problem, then the people of British Columbia will insist that in negotiating the terms of peace the Canadian government make certain that the Japanese in Canada will be repatriated to Japan.

There has been no announcement as yet by the government as to what is to be done, no pronouncement as to wThere these people are to be located. Once again I ask the minister for a declaration, to-night, as to the policy of the dominion government in connection with the Japanese problem.


Alan Webster Neill: This debate on the appropriation for the war has been going on for nearly four months, and I have taken no part in it. I thought plenty of criticism had been offered and too much time had been taken up, and therefore I felt I could best serve the interests of my constituents by allowing the debate to finish so that the government might be released as soon as possible to go on with its other duties in connection with the war. But the matter which has been brought before us so definitely under this item, which provides for payments in connection with the moving of the Japanese, is of such great importance that I feel compelled to state again, at least in part, the very strong views held by the district I represent and I think also by the province from which I come. I spoke on March 1 about this matter, and now to some extent I must confirm what I said on that occasion.
This item is for $3,000,000, but there must be some other item as well, because the cost of removing these Japanese and taking care of their boats runs to over $5,000,000, which is a great deal of money. Just by the way, a good deal of criticism could be offered in that connection, but I shall inject only one matter here. Long after the war had started, though before Japan had entered it, we thought it necessary, looking at least a little ahead, to build some seaplane bases on the west coast. One was built in the district which I represent; and in view of later events hon. members will hardly believe me when I say that I could not get the government of Canada to take the slightest notice of two facts which I laid before them with great emphasis, stating that I knew them of my personal knowledge. One was that within two hundred yards of the aerodrome there was a Japanese village from which they could observe, without let or hindrance, everything that went on, everything that went into or came out of that base. They could take the numbers of the planes, the hours that were worked and everything else. The other matter I brought before the government was the fact that a Japanese had been seen taking photographs of the whole undertaking from an ordinary passenger plane. The answer I got back from the government officials, in the blandest and most indifferent language, was that even if the Japanese had been turned out

War Appropriation-Labour
of the village they could have gone just a little farther away and continued their observations, while as far as the man in the plane was concerned, while that might be true -and it was true-he had now gone back to Japan. They seemed to think that happily ended it. I suppose he had taken the photographs away with him as a souvenir of his love for us or of our love for him. That sort of thing seems absurd, looking back on it now, but I could not get anything done about it then, and there were other matters into which I have not time to go now.
There was a great deal of money wasted in the moving and handling of the Japanese, particularly in connection with their boats. So far as I can make out, the Japs were allowed to carry away from their boats stoves, batteries, radios and everything else movable. Then, when the government decided, quite properly, to sell the boats they replaced all these articles, but they did not replace them at the cost of the people who had stolen or taken them away; they replaced them at the cost of the government, and it came to a very large sum, too. The boats were not properly cared for. They were supposed to be under constant guard, either naval or civilian, yet when we came to sell them, apparently for shame's sake we had to spend something like $120,000 in order to put them back into what was presumably the shape they were in when we took them over. If that had been the ordinary wear and tear through being laid up in the harbour, rust and so on, surely that was the loss of the owners; but no; we had to pay all that, and those costs went to make up this total of $5,000,000 which I have mentioned.
Then again, we had what I might almost call the lavish hospitality that was shown to these gentlemen. They were put into camps, yes; and they ran the camps-the Japs did, not the government. If the Japs did not like a white foreman, the government fired that foreman. The Japs were not disciplined at all. If the foreman could not get on with the Japs-which meant letting the Japs do as they pleased-he was fired. Not long ago they had a strike because they were not being supplied with asparagus tips for breakfast and also because the rice was not of the quantity and quality they desired. Whose fault was it if the rice supply was a little shy? But every attention was paid to their comfort. They had three lady dietitians working for them, three college graduates in home economics. I wonder if our boys who a few years ago, in the time of depression, were riding the rods and then were put into camps, had lady dietitians to look after their welfare.



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
If they did, I do not remember it. Would it not have been a good idea to have Jap camps, Jap prisoners and Jap cooks, and let them do their own cooking? But no, they had to have lady dietitians, and one can imagine how that ran up the cost.
This all makes good campaign material for some of our friends who perhaps would not have done half as well if they had been given the opportunity, but there is no use in attacking the present minister because of these things, since all this happened before he became minister. There is no question about it; British Columbia has enemies, or at least the Japs have friends in high places in Ottawa, as was stated last night by the hon. member for New Westminster. Perhaps we are too far away; but so were the Japs, though they seem to be able to reach out and have the hand of friendship extended to them here. However, I have listened to so much abuse and such unfair criticism of the Department of Labour and also of the Department of Munitions and Supply, criticism which I knew was false and made only for party purposes, that I feel inclined to discount some of the allegations being made now. I heard so much that has proved to be untrue and unfair that I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the present minister. The ink was hardly dry on his appointment before a certain clique of people in this house and in the country were damning him, before he had even started. If they had not been such tintype politicians, they would have realized that this was the way to create sympathy throughout the country for the man they appeared to hate so much. At least it would have been a good policy to let him prove himself wrong and incompetent before condemning him so completely as to excite the sympathy of all decent-minded men.
In the middle of this war, when perhaps tomorrow or perhaps next week this house may be called upon to provide an enormous number of reinforcements or to take other drastic steps, it might be well for us to forget the past for a moment, to deal with the present and to look to the future and the possible demands for action that may arise.
A man well known, a member of parliament in the British House of Commons, Mr. Herbert, who, I believe, is editor of Punch, made this statement:
I have always taken the view that it is better for a person of my limited capacity to try to get a few things well done than to vapour vainly about the ways of the whole world.

[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-Labour
[Stage Direction]
I think that is a wonderful thing. I have taken it to my heart, and it might be well perhaps if some amateur politicians did the same thing. Let us forget about vapouring vainly about the ways of the world, and concentrate on something practical, something that is before our eyes.
Following that principle, I wish to concentrate, and have concentrated on two points of vital importance both to British Columbia and to Canada. One is an increase in the old age pension, and the other is the repatriation of Japanese. So that at this crucial stage in Canadian history I made bold enough on the part of the people whom I represent to make this request-no, I do not make it a request; I make it a demand. The time has come when we are justified in demanding two things, first, that parliament shall introduce legislation to prohibit the further immigration of orientals and, second, that the Prime Minister or the leader of the government pledge his great influence, his vast influence-because Canada's part in the war has been such that she must occupy an almost undefinable position at the peace table, and the Prime Minister of Canada will have such influence that he will have to be listened to, to a large extent-at the peace table to insist upon the repatriation of all Japanese now in Canada, whether of Japanese origin, whether naturalized-by a fake naturalization-or native born.
I place these issues as clearly and vigorously as I can, so that there will be no doubt about them whatsoever. The people, or at least those whom I represent, because I could stake my life in that regard, will ask for these things. I will seek that every party asking for votes, and every candidate will be asked to pledge himself. And I do not mean that he will only be asked to say whether or not he is in favour of Japanese not coming in, or doing something in that regard. Oh, yes, they will all say that to get the votes. But let them vote for it when it comes to the house. Let them be challenged to vote for it when they are given the opportunity irrespective of the party which has brought it in. Let them pledge themselves to it, no matter who proposes it. A man will hesitate to pledge himself to a thing unless he has some intention of carrying it out.
I listened carefully to what was said the other night by the hon. member for New Westminster. and I agreed with a great deal of what he says. But I thought he rather weakened the effect of his speech by adopting an attitude of anticipated defeat, and suggesting, instead, certain palliatives which would not, to my mind, achieve the desired end. I can

well see the Minister of Labour or the Prime Minister saying, "Why, sure, old man, I agree to all that. I can pledge myself to that." But the suggestions were of such a character that we would not get very far.
For instance, he put forth five conditions. These he laid down as a Sort of substitute. If the government would not turn the Japanese out, then he insisted they should do these four or five things. He said:
The first step in any sound and permanent solution of the problem must be taken by the Japanese themselves. . . . They must cut themselves completely aloof from the control and authority of Japan and its emperor.
That is quite true. Of course they will cut themselves loose. Of course they will take the oath of allegiance to the British king. What does that signify when they are heathen? What does a mere oath mean to them? They will take an oath, but that will not get us anywhere. And while we are waiting for them to do it, how about expatriating them in the meantime?
The second suggestion was:
We must expose and tear out the whole web of Japanese influence, propaganda and intrigue and prevent, if possible, tight, deliverable blocks of votes which can always be used to pander to certain politicians.
I heartily agree with that. But how are we going to do it? The United States have found it impossible. They have found it impossible to tear out secret propaganda. Great Britain failed. The United States failed, and we have failed. How are we to be able to do it. Then, with regard to the preventing of blocks of votes, and with the understanding that a person will commit himself to vote in a certain manner, let me say that the whole attitude of British Columbia has been trying to keep them from getting the vote, and we have been successful up to date, and to talk of preventing a block vote is a suggestion that they will get the vote. Anyhow, you cannot stop people voting en bloc.
Another suggestion was this:
We must never allow again unsuperviged Japanese schools conducted in Canada, which were carried on for the sole purpose of keeping the Japanese as Japanese, and I believe indoctrinated the creed of dual citizenship.
That is perfectly true, and I am heartily in agreement with it; but how are we to do it? They will simply say, "Oh, this is a Sunday school"-or a college of science-and they would still have the same propaganda.
The time has gone past for any palliative or alternative. We have finished dealing with these things we call gentlemen's agreements. My understanding of a gentleman's agreement

War Appropriation-Labour
is that it must be between two gentlemen, not one gentleman and a tiger. We must do away with all that. We have had our experiences in that for forty years, and we do not want another twenty years of it. So urgent and bitter is the feeling in British Columbia and as I have lived among them for forty-five years, I ought to know-that if what we ask is not granted, I would subscribe to the demand to break away from eastern Canada, and have a federation of provinces west of the great lakes, not with any feeling or idea of malice, of course. It could be done by an amendment to the British North America Act. We would move away, and maintain our own federation.
1 think, if carried to the prairies, it would be found that they would vote for such a thing. Feeling in British Columbia is high with respect to the Japanese, and I am told that there are reasons why they feel somewhat the same way in the prairie provinces. I need not go into those reasons which would produce sympathetic consideration of the same thing in those provinces.
Unless the Japanese situation is settled in the way 1 have suggested, this action will have to be taken. There are two things we want, namely, the stopping of immigration and the expatriation of Japanese. Why do we want to stop immigration? I have made speeches in the last twenty years. I made them in May, 1938, and in February, 1942, and for the last twenty years-I have all the dates here. In British Columbia we do not want immigration of Japanese or Chinese, because they, but especially the Japanese, can never assimilate with us. They can never become part of us. They can never be absorbed. They have a low standard of living. They do not intermarry with us, largely because they do not want to intermarry with us. They despise us. That is their privilege, of course; but .because they do not marry with us they can never become absorbed.
In Great Britain, the most cosmopolitan country in the world, all are absorbed. Every class of people that comes along is absorbed -those who have made invasions, their conquerors, refugees, Huguenot refugees from the continent. They have assimilated all of them, and they have become a fine race. But we cannot do that in Canada, when we have within our body politic a cancer composed of these unassimilable people.
They do not wish to mix with us, and they are simply waiting for a chance to conquer us. They are always loyal to their own heathen god. They have a religion which teaches them that their emperor is their god.
72537-260J	_	|
Kipling was right when he said that you cannot breed a white man in a brown or yellow hide. We have tried it, and now we know. I hope we do not have to pay too high a price for that knowledge. It is physically possible to intermarry the white and yellow races, but the results accomplished are very poor. Intermarriages seem to increase the bad qualities of both races. But there are mental strains in both races which forbid a proper amalgamation. The main menace, especially in connection with the Japanese, is their fantastic devotion to their god-emperor, and their belief in their destiny as world conquerors. I do not often advertise a book, but if hon. gentlemen will look at "The Three Bamboos" by Robert Standish, published recently, they will get without bias or prejudice a fine conception of the whole Japanese history and of the military junta right up to the time of Pearl Harbor.
Something has been said about the second generation of Japs being all right. Here is a clipping which says that at Los Angeles on June 10, 450 American-born Japanese-; American-born with all the virtues we are told the second generation of Japs have- refused to repudiate their loyalty to the emperor or swear allegiance to the United States. An emperor they have never seen, in whose country they were not bornl They refused to repudiate their allegiance to him. Get that? A loyalty to something outside the United States where they were bornl Over and above that there were another 180 who gave qualified or evasive answers, such as: "I am neutral", to the loyalty question. If we were asked, "Are you going to be loyal to the British king?" and we said, "I am neutral", what would be thought of us? The same paper carries a headline "20,000 negroes belonged to group formed by Japs"-negroes of the lower type, almost morons, subnormal, who were found to have joined a Japanese association in Detroit which stirred up all that trouble which ended in a race riot the other day. They have also found large caches of food and munitions stored by the Japanese in the southern states. To support Americans? Do you think so? You must be very simple if you do. No; it was to help the invading Japanese when they landed in California and other states.
Talk about the treacheries in connection with Pearl Harbor! The Japanese did something of that kind in the Russian war. They attacked Russia before they declared war. It is just a piece of their general policy, and as for their atrocities we have not heard the full story of them yet. I do not know if they are
War Appropriation-Labour
[Stage Direction]
to be wholly blamed for that. You cannot argue with a tiger. You cannot blame him for being insensible to the ordinary decencies because it is not in him, and even when they are educated and cultured they still remain savages. In a way they might not be held to blame for this. We ought to take steps to see that such things do not happen to us any more. There are at least a million reasons why we should not give them a stranglehold on our civilization. What do we want immigration to Canada for? We want more people to make us a more prosperous and successful Canada, I suppose. Is that the way to get it, to allow an influx of people whose loyalty to their own land and their own race and their own religion is so intense? Is it a crime to seek to prevent the entry of such people into our land? If it is a crime, and I have heard myself accused of it, write me down in letters of red, in letters of blood if you like, as being such a criminal; because the time has come when we are no longer to be sloughed off with remarks about what we are going to be and what the Japanese will do by way of gentlemen's agreements, and so on. Those in the thraldom-I use that word rather than a coarser one-of Japan, directly or indirectly, tell us that the Japs bom here are all right. If that is the case, why did the British Columbia security commission have to give a written guarantee, signed and witnessed and everything else, to our brothers of Alberta and Ontario and in a modified form to Manitoba that they would take the Japs back after the war if the other provinces would let them come in now. Here it is:
The commission agrees to remove or to have removed from the province, upon the termination of the state of war now existing between Canada and Japan, the Japanese temporarily placed or maintained within the province pursuant to the terms of this agreement, as requested so to do by the province.
I do not think that is legal. I ask any lawyer, has the government power to delegate such large powers to a commission? But suppose it has, why was not British Columbia given a guarantee too when these Japs were moved away from our province to Alberta and Ontario? Where are they to be sent when the war is over? We do not want them. We want them still less than the other provinces, because their objections to the Japs are second-hand, but we know them. Why not give us in British Columbia a pledge that you will remove the Japanese from our province? But no, they are to be unloaded on us, against our known and deliberately and earnestly expressed opposition.
Mr. BLAIR:: What would you do with them?


Alan Webster Neill: Send them back to Japan. Anything you like. I won't bother, whatever you do with them. But they are not coming back to British Columbia, and that is the voice of British Columbia. You may say: We will send them to the United States. Not if they know anything about it. I have here a clipping that the senate of Oregon has passed a resolution demanding that the Japanese be expatriated. It says:
The Oregon senate voted to-day to ask congress to send all persons of Japanese blood back to Japan after the war and to bar all Japanese from serving in the armed forces.
So that it is not that we are cranks in British Columbia. Oregon thinks the same way. And so it goes. Here is an extract from a speech by the Hon. Henry M. Jackson, of Washington, in the house of representatives, on February 23, 1943:
Mr. Jackson:	Mr. Speaker, I have to-day
introduced a resolution asking that a special committee of the house be set up to investigate Japanese activities in the United States and its possessions. I have requested that this committee direct an investigation into any and all activities of the Japanese in the United States, its territories, and possessions. . . .
And so on. He says further:
After my study of this question, I wish to assure the members of this house that there is not the slightest doubt in my mind but that the Japanese consul, taking his orders directly from Tokyo, ruled the Japanese colonies in our country with an iron and dictatorial hand; thus there was a society within a society and a race within a race. Every two years the Japanese consul in the large Pacific coast cities was changed and a new consul came in, bearing direct orders from the "Son of Heaven" in Tokyo. He directed the establishment of Japanese language schools; he managed the complicated Japanese financial system through the Japanese banks, owned and controlled in the land of the Samurai. The consulate office was the fountain-head from which flowed all directives to Japanese residents, both alien and native to this country, and was also the centre of espionage and propaganda activity.
And eo on.
A committee is to be formed, and he or some of his friends suggested that we should take similar action here and have a joint committee to bring out the facts.
To come back to Canada, if the Japs get the vote here, millions of these fellows will rush in. We are holding them up by a restrictive quota now, which they often abuse, but once give them the power they ask and seek, they will have to have the vote, and they will come in by thousands, by millions, and take possession-infiltration is the nice word for it.
How are we doing without the Japs in our fishing? We are doing better than we did with them. It was not so popular to speak

War Appropriation-Labour
against the Japanese in 1898, which I have done ever since I was elected to the house in British Columbia in that year. But the British Columbia government to-day has passed a resolution against the Japanese and so have city councils and the union of British Columbia municipalities. Here is what the union of municipalities said:
That the provincial government be asked to demand that upon cessation of hostilities, all Japanese, both alien, naturalized or native born, be repatriated to Japan. . . .
And so on. I have resolutions from different Conservative associations-"Tories" they are called in some cases-demanding the calling of a special session of the British Columbia legislature if necessary to emphasize their view. "The Native Sons demand deportation"; "Tories ask ban on Japs," and boards of trade and similar associations pass resolutions to the same effect. I have had many letters on the subject, and I received only one opposed to my point of view and accusing me of being un-Christian and pandering to the mob for the sake of getting votes. But the writer gives the show away when he talks like that, because if I am simply engaged in pandering for votes, it must be assumed that I would pander for the most votes. If the population of British Columbia is divided into two groups, those for and those against, and I am just a vote-catching panderer, having some sense I would pander to the side which has the biggest majority; and in this very statement it is implied that the majority of the people in British Columbia want the Japanese repatriated. That argument works both ways. One can go back thirty-five years and find the same kind of record for the whole period.
I should like to endorse the statement made by the hon. member for New Westminster in connection with this man Trueman. Something ought to be done about that. Trueman has been appointed by this government on the British Columbia placement commission, and he had not well got there-I do not know that he had got there-when he made the statement:
The reason for the mass evacuation of Japanese from Pacific coastal areas was not because of the Japanese, but because of the white residents. The problem was one of mass hysteria and race prejudice.
I say that any government that will allow a man to stay in office after making such a gross prostitution of his duties and obligations is unworthy of support in this or any other house. Here we have an appointee, a placement officer who is expected to try to carry on things smoothly, and he comes out and
makes a statement like that. He could not possibly know what he was talking about. I think the next best punishment would be to turn him loose in British Columbia, but I am afraid he would have a hard time.
The last time I spoke I used these words, and I use them again: "It is not often in the lifetime of a nation that we get a chance to turn back the pages of history and start again." This is a chance that we have never had before and we shall never have again. If we do not use it now, we are sunk.
I should like to speak one word to my eastern friends the French Canadians, courtly sons of a courtly race. I say to them that I feel we have the same situation in British Columbia as they have, only our population is much smaller. We, too, are a minority, but our numbers are much smaller than theirs. We solicit their support, and if they help us we will not fail them when they want help from us. If you fail us to-day, it will be your turn to-morrow, because the Jap influx will spread over Canada; an invasion of the east would be just as ruthless and merciless as it would be in British Columbia.
A word to the politicians, who are supposed to be very bad people and have an eye on the next election. I say with all the emphasis of the experience .1 have that that man and that party that will pledge themselves to the two movements I have suggested will have my earnest and undivided support in the next election, and I am certain that the same applies to the great mass of the people of British Columbia, and possibly beyond that province, because the thing is beginning to spread. Alberta knows what is going on. So that I beg the government, before it is too late, and not, according to their habit too often, just after it is too late, to grapple with the situation and meet it before it gets out of our hand. As the hon. member for Vancouver South said, we cannot expatriate British subjects, even if they are only imitation British subjects, after the war, except in individual cases. We know that we can thus deal with people guilty of crimes connected with the traffic in narcotics, but I do not know if expatriation can be done on a large scale unless it is part of the terms of the treaty. That is for the government to decide. But I want to emphasize this, if it is the last thing I say in a lifetime: British Columbia and western Canada want stopped totally immigration of Japanese into British Columbia, and we want the repatriation at the end of the war of every individual of Japanese origin.
War Appropriation-Labour


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I am
afraid that after that flesh-creeping speech, what I have to say will sound rather tame. We are now considering the item in the appropriation to care for persons of Japanese origin who were moved from the defence area of the Pacific coast following the declaration of war between Canada and Japan. I agree with the other hon. members who have spoken on this question that although for many years the question of the orientals in Canada-and this is only one phase of it-was almost altogether a question for the province of British Columbia, it is not any longer so, it is now a question for the Dominion of Canada. One of the things which the other provinces can do if they want to be helpful in this situation is to assist the government and the people of Canada to find a solution. It is not going to be easy to find a solution.
I want to congratulate the minister upon the manner in which he has handled this very difficult problem. A great deal more might perhaps have been done, but taking the situation by and large, with all the difficulties that surrounded it, I think the minister and the British Columbia security commission have made as good a job as could be expected. Perhaps the matter could have been more easily handled if the clearing station which was at Hastings Park had been put outside the defence area at the beginning. However, it might have been difficult to find an appropriate place, and that was not done. Nothing further need be said about it now.
Because this is a question which must be decided on principles, principles I believe such as are laid down in the Atlantic charter, the first thing I am going to do is to make my own position clear and definite beyond the possibility of a doubt either in this house, in my own province or anywhere in Canada.
Canada is at war with Japan. Canada is also at war with Germany and Italy. I see no reason why we should deal with the population of Japanese origin among us any differently from the way in which we deal with those of German and Italian extraction. If we deal with them differently-and we have done so-we do it on, account of racial prejudice. So far as I have been able to ascertain : so far as anything that has been said in this house is concerned, the population of Japanese origin in the Dominion of Canada has been just as loyal as any other section of the people; and note this, no other section of the people has been treated in the way that these people have 'been treated. They have indicated their loyalty and their Canadianism
tMr. Neill.]
in many ways. They have indicated their loyalty and Canadianism by their willingness to enlist. Very few of them, however, were allowed to get into the armed forces. They have indicated their loyalty by their willingness to work and to produce, and they have indicated their loyalty by cooperation with the government in the difficult task of evacuation from the Pacific coast. So far as I know, there has been no sabotage. There have been no subversive acts. I thought it was rather unkind of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) last evening in his speech, with a great deal of which I agree, to say, in mentioning that there had been no sabotage, that "perhaps" the time is not ripe. They are damned if they commit subversive acts, because there is no doubt then of their disloyalty; but when they do not commit sabotage or subversive acts, then it is not right to say that possibly the time is not ripe. Let us take the fact that the act was not committed as evidence that there was no intention to commit it. That is what we would expect in regard to ourselves, and I think it is part of the Christian creed that we should do to others as we would have them do to us. In the same way, we should think of others as we would like to have them think of us.
I said they were not allowed to enlist, and the reason for that is not one that Canada can be very proud, of. They were not allowed to enlist because it was feared that their services to the country would strengthen their claims for the full rights of citizenship after this war was over. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) referred to certain steps that were taken to stop Asiatic immigration. We do not refer to Asiatic immigration now. We do not refer to the oriental question. We merely refer to the Japanese question. Why? Because we are at war with Japan. But after the war the whole question of the oriental population of British Columbia will be there just as it was there before the war began, and we cannot divide it now into watertight compartments. The hon. member for Vancouver South referred to steps taken to stop Asiatic immigration. He referred to what was done in 1923, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and he also referred to the bill introduced in 1938 by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I was wondering how he overlooked the resolution introduced by myself in 1936. That resolution was very explicit. It was debated in this house for at least a part of two sessions. I will read it:
Whereas it is detrimental to the best interests of Canada that there should be in the country

War Appropriation-Labour
groups to whom, because of race or religious beliefs, we do not extend all the rights of citizenship;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government should take the necessary measures to exclude from the country all persons belonging to those groups to whom we do not grant the full rights and privileges of citizenship.
The Japanese belonged to "those groups" mentioned in the resolution; yet every Liberal and Conservative member' of this house, alike, voted against that resolution; and the hon. member for Comox-AJberni, in speaking against it, told the house how satisfied he was with the manner in which the gentlemen's agreement between Canada and Japan had worked.
The hon. member for New Westminster, speaking last night, said he was sorry that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation had brought into political discussion the question of votes for Japanese. May I tell the hon. member for New Westminster that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation did not bring that issue into the political arena. If it was brought into the political arena and if it became a political issue, it was brought there by those who thought they could use it against the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. That is how it was brought there. Let me tell the committee how it happened. During the discussion of the Franchise Act in 1934, the late Mr. Woodsworth spoke against the section in the act disfranchising the Doukhobors in British Columbia, and in the course of his remarks he mentioned that he was in favour of extending the franchise to the orientals. This dialogue took place in the house during the discussion:
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver):	Is the hon.
member in favour of enfranchising orientals in British Columbia?
Mr. Woodsworth:	I am in favour of enfranchising orientals in British Columbia.
Mr. Neill: Did you say that during the late election in British Columbia?
Mr. Woodsworth: I did.
Mr. Neill: I did not hear of it.
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver):	Is the C.C.F.
in favour of it?
Mr. Woodsworth: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Go on; finish the sentence.


Angus MacInnis: When we say, yes, that is all that is necessary. I did not stop reading it because I did not want to read it; I stopped reading it because I thought-


An hon. MEMBER:: He thought there was a catch in it.


Angus MacInnis: Let me tell the hon. member that I act on principles. Do not think you will catch me. When you act on principle you do not have to worry about being caught.


Alan Webster Neill: It reads, "I will go into your district and tell them." I have it here.


Angus MacInnis: If my hon. friend has it there I shall be glad to have him read it; I have mislaid the mark I had showing the page. I have been in British Columbia, a resident of Vancouver, since 1908, or thirty-five years, and I have never known an election yet in which the oriental question was not an issue. It was kicked around by both political parties, each one trying to make capital out of it against the other. But I agree that the question of the franchise did not become a political issue until 1934 when the C.C.F. decided that, because the orientals were brought to British Columbia by greedy employers for cheap labour, it was necessary to raise their standard of living by putting them on a par with white workers. The purpose of the old parties who wanted to exploit both the oriental worker and the white worker was to keep them apart. We decided to raise them to the status of citizenship and extend to them all the rights of citizenship so that they could better defend their own interests and the interests of all workers.


Alan Webster Neill: I have that extract, which
states:
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver):	Is the hon.
member in favour of enfranchising orientals in British Columbia?
Mr. Woodsworth:	I am in favour of enfranchising orientals in British Columbia.
Mr. Neill: Did you say that during the late election in British Columbia?
Mr. Woodsworth: I did.
Mr. Neill: I did not hear of it.
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver):	Is the C.C.F.
in favour of it?
Mr. Woodsworth: Yes;
Then there is a semi-colon. The hon. member stopped reading in the middle of a sentence. Mr. Woodsworth then went on to say:

there is no doubt about that. I will go into your riding and tell them so; there is no doubt about that.
I also have some letters here from the hon. gentleman himself.


Angus MacInnis: Anyone who knows anything about punctuation knows that a colon or a semi-colon is as good as a period. It is amusing to see the attempts that are made to-day to confine this question to the Japanese. If it will help the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, let me say that the C.C.F. has not changed its position since Mr. Woodsworth made that statement. If it does change its position on that question; if it ever discriminates as between race and race, then I shall be no longer a member of the C.C.F.
War Appropriation-Labour

There are nearly as many Chinese in British Columbia as there are Japanese, and besides that there are some 2,000 East Indians, possibly not that many.


Alan Webster Neill: Fifteen hundred.


Angus MacInnis: These are the blood
brothers of the two million East Indians who have voluteered to fight for this country as well as for their own. Yet when these East Indians went to the legislature in British Columbia, these people who were British subjects before they came to this country, they were denied the right that every British subject should have, no matter in what part of the British commonwealth he may find himself. A few days ago we paid homage in this chamber to a woman, an oriental, one of the loyal Japanese race.


Alan Webster Neill: Chinese.


Angus MacInnis: Chinese; that was a slip of the tongue. Along with many other members of this house I attended the reception given in her honour by the Chinese minister. I was greatly amused to find my British Columbia friends there sipping their cocktails quite unembarrassed.


Alan Webster Neill: Was I there?


Angus MacInnis: I did not see my hon. friend. I did not mind that, but I wondered how they were going to square themselves with the Chinese, our gallant allies, when they went back to British Columbia and told them, "You are good enough to fight the Japanese but you are not good enough to have the vote in British Columbia."
The hon. member for New Westminster referred to the objections raised to the Japanese in the United States and he quoted a statement by one Miller Freeman. I do not know who this gentleman is; he may be a quite important person; but some little time ago I noted in the press that an action had been started by the native sons of the golden west in California to have the names of Japanese of United States birth removed from the register voting. The state appeal court consisting of seven judges gave judgment against this action without leaving the bench. I always thought that in the treatment of minorities the British people were ahead of any other nation in the world. I would hate to think that the United States had a better record than ours in this regard.
I have referred already to China and to what that country is doing in the great struggle in which we are all engaged. But there is another country toward which the eyes of the

world are turned these days on account of the resistance put up by her people against a relentless foe. I refer to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. I was interested to note that one of the sections in the constitution of the Soviet Union provides for equal rights for all citizens. It reads:
Equal rights for citizens of the U.S.S.R. irrespective of nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social, and political life, shall be an irrevocable law.
I would not like my country to be behind any other country in those things that put the hallmark of civilization upon people.
The hon. member for New Westminster referred to the fact that some churches had declared against repatriation, while others were in favour of it. I have seen a resolution by at least one church against repatriation, but I have not come across any resolution in favour of the repatriation of persons of Japanese origin in Canada which has been passed by any church.


Thomas Reid: The Baptist Church of British Columbia, at a conference in Vancouver, went on record.


Angus MacInnis: I have before me The New Canadian of May 29, which contains a resolution passed by the United Church of British Columbia at their conference. Referring to what we call repatriation but which for most of the population of Japanese origin in British Columbia would not be repatriation but would be deportation or exile, they have this to say:
Such proposals as to deport large numbers of people born in Canada or who otherwise have acquired Canadian citizenship, is contrary to the Christian conscience and carries with it natural reactions in a deep threat to unity in Canada and of smoldering ill-will with promise of future wars from outside of Canada.
The resolution went further and said:
We protest against the selling of private property by the government without the consent of the owners because the people belong to a particular race or are of a particular national origin, and against the application of the law of Canada in a different way with respect to persons due to difference of race or of national origin.
I associate myself completely with the resolution and protest of the United Church. I wonder if, when Franceschini was interned for a short time, his holdings were sold by the custodian of enemy property.


Mr. McLARTY:: Yes; the assets of the Dufferin Construction Company were sold to the government of the Dominion of Canada. I can answer that question immediately.


Angus MacInnis: They were sold, but not in that way; he carried the deal through.

War Appropriation-Labour


Norman Alexander McLarty: There is only one way to sell property.


Angus MacInnis: But those properties were not sold by the custodian of enemy property, so far as I have been able to learn.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes; they were sold by the custodian of enemy property and were purchased by the government of the Dominion of Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: With regard to the resolution read by the hon. member as coming from the United Church, did he read that from a newspaper or from a letter?


Angus MacInnis: I read it from a newspaper.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, I saw the same thing in the newspapers and I wrote those people. They wrote back and said it was a mistake, that they had not passed the resolution but had sent it back for reconsideration.


Angus MacInnis: If my hon. friend has that letter I should be glad to see it. I do not have it. I took the resolution as it appeared in the newspaper.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If the hon. member would permit me to ask a question. He quoted from a book in connection with what the Soviet Union was doing. I wonder if he would mind giving the name of the author of that book.


Angus MacInnis: The book is "Land of the Soviets" by Marguerite Ann Stewart, edited by Maxwell S. Stewart, cover by LaVerne Riess, a cooperative project between the American council, institute of pacific relations, and the Webster Publishing company, St. Louis, Dallas and Los Angeles.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If I might ask a further question; is the author of that book the erstwhile secretary of the communist party of Canada?


Angus MacInnis: I do not know whether the author of this book is the secretary of the communist party of Canada; I am not acquainted with the coihmunist party of Canada or its officials. But whether or not he or she, as the case may be, is secretary of the communist party, the quotation I read was from the constitution of the Soviet Union, and consequently would not be modified either one way or the other by the political views of the author of the book.
In conclusion, I want to put myself definitely on record as being opposed to what is called repatriation of persons of Japanese origin in Canada. Most of these people, so far as I have been able to learn-the figures are conflicting- are of Canadian birth. I have in my hand the
report of a special committee on orientals in British Columbia, made in December, 1940. I believe the chairman of this committee was Mr. Sparling, and the report has been sometimes referred to as the Sparling report. The figures given as to the status of persons of Japanese origin in British Columbia are as follows:
(1)	Canadian nationals by naturalization, approximately	
2,400(2)	Canadian nationals by birth, approximately	
13,400(3)	Japanese nationals, approximately 7,200
23,000


Mr. STIRLING:: Would the hon. member give the date of that report?


Angus MacInnis: December, 1940.


Grote Stirling: Those figures are entirely different from the figures of the mounted police.


Angus MacInnis: These figures are different from those read by the hon. member for Vancouver South, a copy of which I have before me. Those figures are as follows:
Canadian born	 6,584
Naturalized Canadians	 7,012
Japanese nationals	 9,868
United States citizens	 16
I thought the figures I was reading were in answer to questions asked by myself, but the hon. member for Vancouver South has just handed me the answers to my questions, which give figures which are also different. These figures are as follows:
Japanese nationals	 9,382
Naturalized Japanese	 6,497
Canadian born	 6,084
Citizens of other countries	 12
I said I was opposed to repatriation because it would not be repatriation in the proper sense; it would be deportation or exile for these people. As a Canadian, as a Britisher, I am opposed to that sort of thing. There are reasons why that policy would not be feasible even if we agreed to it. It is very doubtful if it could be done for many years, or at least for a considerable time after the war was over, and then certainly it could be done only in consultation and agreement with the other united nations and under the general policy laid down for the settlement of questions having to do with racial minorities and matters of that kind. In that connection I should like to put on record a statement made by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, British Columbia section, in convention in April of this year:
1.	That Japanese be now assisted to obtain productive and permanent employment outside

War Appropriation-Labour

the protected area, and in other provinces at prevailing rates of pay to protect labour standards, and under conditions enabling them to re-settle with their families. This will substantially relieve the present man-power shortage and mitigate against any future concentration on the coast in British Columbia. In this connection attention is directed to the fact that a similar policy is being carried out in the United States, to the point where loyal Japanese-Americans are being enrolled in combatant units of the American army.
In the United States they are taken into war industry, and into all forms of production.
The statement continues:
2.	That transfer of investments held by Japanese in British Columbia to other sections of the dominion be facilitated.
3.	That education of the Japanese children be conducted in strict conformity with Canadian standards and under qualified Canadian teachers.
At the present time the Japanese who have been moved from the Pacific coast have no teachers other than Japanese. An attempt was made to shut them off altogether from the education facilities of the province, but there was so much objection to any policy of that kind, that it was not gone through with. But the fact remains that while we object to their national schools, we put them in a posi- , tion where they can get no teachers other than those of their own race.
Then the statement continues:
4.	That responsibility for the satisfactory resettlement of Japanese across Canada be fixed now with the dominion government.
I wish to draw that point particularly to the attention of the Minister of Labour. This situation is definitely now the problem of the dominion government. It must deal with this question in a national way; in a way which will be satisfactory to the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada as a whole. We should deal with it, not on a basis of racial prejudice, not on a basis of our present feelings in a time of war, but on the basis that we should extend our hatred to those who have earned it. In this case it would be to the leaders in Japan, to the ruling class in that country. But the innocent should not have our hatred; they should have our assistance and our protection.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sure the committee will agree that this is a matter in which there is great interest. This is the first time, since I have been a member of the house, that there has been any inducement or encouragement to look toward the staff sitting in front of the minister. We have talked all round the globe. We have made a 
global trip, touching upon Russia, China and India. I understood we were discussing the Japanese.
We have had quotations from the Winnipeg platform, and now the hon. member for Vancouver East gives us the platform of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I understand the hon. member has definitely stated that his party is still in favour of giving the vote to the Japanese.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	And to the Chinese; do
not forget that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, I believe in taking one subject up at a time, not covering the whole globe all at once.
Mr. MaeINNIS: The hon. member is very careful about the subjects he takes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And I am not afraid to say what I am going to say now either in or out of my riding. The hon. member for Vancouver East has said definitely that he is in favour of giving the Japanese ' the vote. Now, I must say I understand why this item appeared in the Japanese Press.
Mr. MaeINNIS: The hon. member understands something, then.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would be a very clever man if I could understand the hon. member for Vancouver East. This article is headed:
Jap paper congratulates C.C.F. on Revelstoke win.
Then we find these words:
"New Canadian," an independent weekly for Canadians of Japanese origin, now published at Kaslo, has congratulated the C.C.F. on its "victory in hectic Revelstoke by-election."
The Japanese paper adds:
"To Japanese Canadians who have been agreeably surprised in the past by the democratic and forthright stand of the C.C.F. party regarding racial minorities, the election results defeating the repatriation advocates was a pleasant omen."
I can understand that, after my hon. friend has definitely stated where his party stands.
I do not wish to go into details which have been mentioned by other hon. members and which I have discussed before. The reason why hon. members from British Columbia continue to bring our points of view before the people from the east is that we must do so, or we shall get no action after the war. There were exactly six or seven British Columbia members who secured the removal of the Japanese from the Pacific coast area. Mark that, either six or seven were in battle, day

War Appropriation-Labour
after day. Finally we convinced the govern^ men-t of the necessity of following the point of view we had advanced. And we certainly got no assistance from the preceding speaker in that connection.
We believed that the rest of Canada should be told our stand in the matter. I must say I have never heard any other hon. member, with the exception of the hon. member who preceded me, talk hatred in any way, shape or form. I do not know of any hon. member from British Columbia, other than the preceding speaker, who has introduced the word "hatred." We had absolutely no hatred for the Japanese, a point which was brought out well by the hon. member for Vancouver South.
It is neither reasonable nor sensible to expect us to handle as many Japanese as we have had, in proportion to our population. So far the rest of Canada has not shown us that it is willing even to assume part of the problem as a defence measure. I am surprised that the hon. member who has so much to say for the minority does not repeat that. We find that the rest of Canada is not prepared, even as a defence measure, to take part of these Japanese during the war. That is the reason why, so far as I am concerned, every time there is a session at Ottawa, and every time there is some excuse, I am going to mention the Japanese problem as it applies to British Columbia.
So far as my constituency is concerned, we do not want them back. And, following up that very line of being fair to the minority, may I say it would not be in the interests of the minority if this or any other governmental department attempted to bring them back. That is not an idle statement. Anyone who knows British Columbia knows it is the truth. Get in touch with the Canadian Legion or any other organization, and find out what they have to say.
For instance, my hon. friend1 referred to the churches. Well, he did not quote the Baptist convention. I hold in my hand a report appearing in the Vancouver Sun of June 18, and I should like to read what the Baptist convention said:
The convention passed a second resolution criticizing "Those in political and religious life who have shown an exceptional interest in the fate of a very small minority of enemy aliens here in British Columbia."
I should be glad to read the rest of it to my hon. friend, because the Sun is a good newspaper. I would advise him to read either the
Sun or the Province, instead of the Federa-tionist. If he does so, he will keep up to date in British Columbia. The article continues:
The resolution stated that "A great proportion of the Japanese minority are not clear in their loyalty to Canada, their land of adoption, and that every member of the Japanese community who is an adherent of the Shinto faith has by that attachment clearly indicated his allegiance to Japan and to no other country."
That is the Baptist convention. I should like to read a few other things, but I want to be brief.
What about this Prince Konoye, or that little rat Tojo-yes, coyote would be good enough. These famous, loyal Canadians, with "B.A." after their names, were the most dangerous ones we had to contend with. What did they say in the Vancouver press? They said that through the kindness of their hearts they permitted us to look down from our office windows on this distinguished Tojo. I am looking up to no Tojo, vote or no vote. The hon. member for Vancouver East said in effect that we ill-treated the Japanese, that we did not give them fair treatment.


Angus MacInnis: I said that they were treated differently from any other section of the community, and from any other racial group.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I accept the hon. member's statement. I admit that the Japs were treated differently. They were treated a great deal better than most races. I cannot read all of this paper. Part of it is in Japanese. It is called The New Canadian, and is dated February 20, 1943. There may be a speech by my hon. friend the member for Vancouver East on the back page. I cannot read all this sheet, but I can certainly read the English part of it, and I see here a federal government advertisement paid for by war bonds and war savings certificates. This is the advertisement the federal government puts in a Jap paper, run by these Japs that we are ill-treating so much! It is a selective service notice! I did not know before that they came under national selective service, but I know what some of the camps are like where these Japs are. I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver East has been to one of these camps. He should go and see them. I have one in my riding. We are paying S500 a month rental for a hunk of woods, with eighteen feet of snow in it, and you cannot get out of it for six months in the year. That is what we are spending each month to look after these Japs that we are ill-treating. There are 2.670 of them in one camp in my riding, and if I belonged to the right party I might get a hold on those 2,670 votes.
4218
War Appropriation-Labour

The hon. member also mentioned loyalty to Canada and said that we should take the Japs into our army. He said that was done in the United States. Has he read that article in the Saturday Evening Post by a United States aviator who was shot down? Has he read of the executions of United States flyers who came down over Tokyo? Did he hear a Canadian girl speaking from Toronto over the Canadian broadcasting system last Sunday and telling of her experiences as a prisoner in Japan during the war? In my opinion you cannot pay allegiance to two countries. You must owe your allegiance to one country and one country only. I would be insulted if I happened to be in Tokyo andi anyone accused me of being loyal to Japan. I would still be a Britisher wherever I was and I think the Japs are the same way too. One of our allies has made the mistake, I think, of taking some Japs into their army. We have, I believe, exactly one Jap in the Canadian army. I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong.


An hon. MEMBER:: One too many!


George Alexander Cruickshank: One too many! It may be one less vote for some hon. gentleman's party in the next election.
The hon. member for Vancouver East criticized the hon. member for New Westminster and said that there had been no sabotage by the Japs yet. Does he seriously think we should wait until sabotage takes place before we prepare against it? Surely he does not mean that. Fortunately, there has been no particular sabotage by the Japs or the Germans or the Italians in Canada so far, but to suggest that they are loyal simply because there has been no sabotage does not make sense to me. I defy the hon. member to show any organization in British Columbia other than the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, which has endorsed the retaining of the Japanese in British Columbia. The boards of trade, the women's institutes, the Canadian Legion and every other organization that I know of in British Columbia is not asking, it is demanding that the Japanese be sent out of the country after the war. I am surprised that one particular organization for which I have great respect, for it has recommended a lot of good legislation-


Angus MacInnis: I suppose we are doing it for votes!


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad to hear the hon. member make that statement. I had my own ideas about it. I do not mind the interruption. The hon. member for Vancouver East and I are good friends. We both enjoyed
fMr. Cruickshank.]
the hospitality of the Chinese consul, and it was intimated to me that I might be asked what my stand would be in connection with votes for the Chinese. I think I stated that after seeing their gracious first lady I would be delighted to join the Chinese army. But I am not here to discuss whether we should give votes to the Chinese or to the Japanese.
I want to bring home to hon. members from every part of Canada this point. I think it is the duty of this government to intimate to us in British Columbia what their policy is in connection with the Japanese problem. We cannot expect this government to lay down a definite policy now; I don't think any government could do that while the war is on, because, as the hon. member for Vancouver East said, there will have to be an international settlement after the war. We all know that, but I think this government should declare to the people of British Columbia what their stand is. Most of the Japs are still left in British Columbia. Make no mistake about this: The security commission is not running the Japanese in British Columbia; the Japanese are running your commission out there. They are telling you what you are going to do and what you are not going to do, and so far they have been successful in getting away with it. Then we have some two-by-four penny-ante official here in Ottawa saying that the people of British Columbia are getting hysterical over the Japanese. I resent that. Mr. Grant MacNeil, a former member of this house, a prominent member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in British Columbia, and a former member of the British Columbia security commission, said publicly that there was no such hysteria. I would fire that penny-ante official in Ottawa to-morrow for insulting the people of British Columbia. We have no saner or more loyal people in Canada than are to be found in British Columbia, and if that two-by-four official is still on the payroll I would not wait until to-morrow, I would fire him out to-night.
I do not want to take up any more time. I am not afraid of any political party in my riding hearing the truth; Fraser Valley does not want and will not permit the return of the Japanese, and the government might just as well face that fact. Any party that is looking for votes from that class will be badly disappointed because we will not have them back in British Columbia.


Grote Stirling: It is not my intention to occupy many minutes this evening' on this question of the Japanese. The matter has

War Appropriation-Labour
been debated on many previous occasions, on most of which I have taken part, and there can be no doubt as to where I stand on the question. If we were to look back over the record, I doubt whether we should find a statement better and more clearly made and more comprehensive than that made this evening by the hon. member for Vancouver South. It was entirely fair in that it did not in any sense magnify facts out of their proper bearing. The reason why I rose at all this evening is that I do trust that this debate will not end until the government has made a plain statement with regard to its policy of the future of the Japanese.
I make that plea for this reason, that I represent a riding in the centre of the southern part of British Columbia. Perhaps hon. members will imagine a map of British Columbia suspended from the gallery, and draw a stripe of 100 miles wide down the Pacific coast, which would represent the protected area out of which these 24,000 Japanese were moved, and then will visualize the fact that directly after the treachery of Pearl Harbor some of these Japanese started creeping and seeping out of that area, before ever the British Columbia security commission got into the saddle, and landed into the three ridings which border that stripe-the southern part of Cariboo, the riding of Kamloops, and the constituency of Yale which I represent. I want to endeavour to impress upon the minister the fact that the feeling of anxiety which exists in the minds of the people of the southern part of British Columbia is but a natural one. In the central portion only of the Okanagan valley we had 500 Japanese residents long before Pearl Harbor. When the seepers came in, before the security commission got into the saddle, something like another 500 hived up with the original 500, so that we have a thousand Japanese. On top of that, about six weeks ago a few more entered that central portion as a result of permits which were issued, against the wishes of the population, by the security commission for Japanese to come in and labour.
The people in that interior part look on this question somewhat in this way. Prom the protected area the 24,000 Japanese have been removed. We have a thousand in the centre of the Okanagan. Par and away the majority of those 24,000 are still in British Columbia, and the 6,000 odd that have been sent across the Rocky mountains into other provinces have been sent in under agreements with the provincial governments, each of which contains the understanding that those who come shall also be sent away. The clause in the agreement has been quoted here this evening. So
that the people in my part of British Columbia look at it in this way. The protected area has been emptied, and it has been emptied into our part of southern British Columbia. The voice of the inhabitants of the protected area is stridently in favour of declining ever to see these Japanese go back into the protected area. They realize the time will come when those who have gone into the other provinces will be removed from those provinces. Is it unnatural of them to ask, well, where will all these Japanese go? In the earlier part of the existence of the British Columbia security commission the commission made no bones about it whatever that the most convenient place to get rid of these Japanese from the protected area was to let them settle as soon as they got outside the edge of it, namely in the Okanagan valley and the riding of Kamloops and the riding of Cariboo, and the inhabitants of that part, agricultural land as it is, have no intention whatever of agreeing placidly to the return of the Japanese there.
There must be a solution which will deal with this matter once and for all. For at least twenty-five years it has been so great a difficulty to the province of British Columbia. That is well illustrated by the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South. The dominion government once, twice, three times, four times prevented the carrying out of these actions that British Columbia decided to take. Let it be recognized at last that this is not a British Columbia question; it is a Canadian question, and if we are to have unity within Canada we must settle the Japanese question this time once and for all.


Thomas Reid: There are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I could reply in a general way to some of the observations, and then have the questions after, that might be satisfactory. I am going to be very brief, in view of the lateness of the evening.
In connection with the policy of the government having to do with the removal of the Japanese from the protected areas in British Columbia, my mind goes back a little over a year, when the responsibility for that movement was placed in the hands of the Department of Labour. I think it may be fairly said that in view of the apprehension on the British Columbia coast the Department of Labour has moved with expedition, and might I say, on behalf'of the British Columbia security commission, has performed a satisfactory job under very difficult circumstances.
Some criticism has been voiced of certain members of the British Columbia commission.
War Appropriation-Labour

As I said the other night, I have some knowledge of international affairs, particularly in the Pacific area. When I travelled west to British Columbia for the purpose of setting in motion this policy of moving the Japanese from the protected areas, I say frankly that in view of the situation at Pearl Harbor, in India, Australia, the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, and the Dutch East Indies, I did not feel a very happy man. The news of course was of a character which I had to keep to myself. Nevertheless we set about the removal of these people. I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver East who said that possibly it would have been better if we had chosen a concentration place other than Hastings Park, but when I got off the plane and looked the situation over, that appeared to me to be the most satisfactory place to use as a dispersal point for these people.
I say, as I said last year, that it is not going to be said about me or my department while I am in charge of the policy of handling Japanese people that we will depart one iota from the kind of treatment of human beings that characterizes the British people and has given them the reputation they enjoy in the world. Let that be clearly understood.
The hon. member for Vancouver East made some constructive suggestions, particularly in connection with education. I say to him that there was no racial prejudice as far as the labour department was concerned in the removal of the Japanese. We moved that number in the manner we did on account of concentration of the Japanese in the protected areas. So far as my department was concerned, no racial prejudice entered into the question at all. At this point, in view of the fact that the British Columbia security commission has finished its labours, and now that the matter comes squarely under the jurisdiction of my department, may I give my personal thanks to the members of the commission for having undertaken a very difficult task. I have found, as I suppose other hon. members have found, that when you have a very difficult task it is sometimes not the easiest thing in the world to assume responsibility. But when the undertaking is completed, criticism is sometimes voiced about mistakes that have been made in the process of execution. So that I pay a tribute to Mr Taylor, Mr. John Shirras of the provincial police, assistant commissioner F. J. Mead of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Doctor Hodgins, who was and still is in charge of the medical services to the Japanese people, as well as to the advisory committee, who represented a good cross-section of all political parties and interests in British Columbia.

Do not forget that to tear up by the roots a community equivalent to a fair-sized city like Guelph was no mean undertaking. We had to provide hospital accommodation, housing and schooling for those people, and all those health measures that are necessary in what we may term a civilized community, and I think it is to the credit of the people responsible that there have been no epidemics among the Japanese. There have been investigations by representatives of the Japanese government, through the Spanish consul in Canada, of the settlements that we have instituted and the policies that we have pursued, and I am glad to say that the representative of the Japanese was completely satisfied, as was the representative of the International Red Cross in Geneva, with the treatment which we have given these people, who at the moment, to all intents and purposes, are wards of the state. I hope that when the war is over and the story is told of our own flesh and blood who are at the moment prisoners of the Japanese, the same thing may be said of the Japanese government with regard to their treatment of our kith and kin who are at present prisoners in their hands.
Something has been said about the expense of the movement. I should like to compare our operations with those of the United States. They had about 110,599 to move to camps. It is true, as one hon. gentleman said, I forget who, that about 5,000 Japanese Americans are in the United States army. The estimated expenditure for a year of the United States government is $70,000,000 for that 110,000 Japanese, and that works out on a per capita basis of roughly $600. The expenditure in the past year by this department for the movement of our Japanese works out at $173.05 per capita. In that connection the economical operation by ourselves was not at the expense of the Japanese. We endeavoured to have a policy whereby from the outset as many Japanese as possible would be self-supporting. We felt, and I still feel personally, that the policy of dispersal is far better than the policy of concentration, and I understand, from advices from our good friends to the south, that they intend to follow a similar policy in that country. I think it is far better to have the grown-up Japanese go to work in a productive way and in turn to support their wives and families than to have them live in idleness in camps, and accordingly we have seen a movement east from British Columbia into other provinces. We see a movement into Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
I think it is fair to say that in considerable part the fact that we can have the amount of sugar that we have at the moment

War Appropriation-Labour
is owing to the manner in which the government and its agencies worked in getting the Japanese people to go into the sugar beet fields in Manitoba, Ontario and Alberta. Of course, we have the Japanese building roads in British Columbia and we intend to use them for the cutting of wood.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. My hon. friend
can laugh. It may be that the Japanese in British Columbia will make it possible for him to keep warm this winter. We are setting in motion a policy whereby we hope-I would not say expect, but hope-to have them cut
100,000	cords of wood for use in British Columbia next winter, and if we are successful I hope that the complaints that came to my department last winter owing to the shortage of fuel in that province will not occur again this winter, so far as wood is concerned.
I should like to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Vancouver South for the contribution he made with respect to the historical background of the Japanese problem in British Columbia. I think it all adds to the sum total of the knowledge which the members of this house have of the problem. I would also thank other hon. members including the hon. gentleman- representing the Okanagan district. I know something of the difficulties of the people there and something of their background, and I hope that we shall be able in large measure to meet their wishes. He knows, as I do, something of the complexities of the problem in that part of British Columbia, although numerically it is not a big problem. There is a difference of opinion as between certain sections of the Okanagan valley.
My hon. friends said something about government policy and asked what we are going to do after the war. [DOT] I think this matter will be settled on an international basis, irrespective of our own personal opinions, irrespective of my own personal opinions, in regard to the matter. We know that eventually, when victory is assured or is ours, there will be a peace conference. No doubt the question of racial minorities in other countries will be dealt with at that conference, not only by Canada but by the major powers engaged in the present conflict. I assume that what will be the agreed policy of all the powers at the peace conference will be the policy of this dominion.
At the moment the policy of this dominion is, first, to keep the Japanese out of the protected areas in British Columbia or in any other province. Second, to find useful work
for them so that they will be self-supporting. I think that is a sound policy. While it is not a glamorous policy and one cannot make emotional speeches about it, it is a constructive policy. I think all hon-. members will agree that we have been reasonably successful in that direction. Third, as far as possible reduce the concentration of these people in large groups. I think that is a sound policy. When one considers the size of Canada, 23,000 people on a continent-Canada is part of a continent- are hardly more than pebbles on the beach. If there can be that degree of decentralization or dispersal, I do not think even my good friends in British Columbia will worry. Fourth, to see that the Japanese behave themselves, but to treat them fairly if they carry out the regulations as laid down by the government. The next is the international aspect, but I have dealt with that already.
In conclusion, I wish to thank hon. members for the contribution they have made to this debate. I appreciate that in attempting to formulate and undertake a policy as involved as one dealing with the Japanese problem it is a good thing to have suggestions and criticisms from members of this house and from people outside of the house through the members. Hon. members can rest assured that the labour department will do all in its power to face up to the problem in a common-sense, practical and humane way.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: In referring to cordwood, the minister said ten hundred thousand cords; was that what he meant.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am sorry; it should be one hundred thousand cords.


Thomas Reid: I am glad I gave way to the minister a few moments ago, because I believe he has given the lie to the statement made by Mr. Trueman who said that the removal of the Japanese had been demanded as a result of mass hysteria and of agitation by some members of parliament. The minister has pictured the situation as he saw it when he went to British Columbia. It was serious and the government acted wisely. It was not on account of mass hysteria. While the danger to-day on the Pacific coast may not be as great, when Pearl Harbor fell no one in this country knew what might happen in British Columbia. Here were 23,000 Japanese, hundreds of whom had bought new trucks which they had filled up with gasoline and loaded with gunpowder. They had the finest maps of the coast and they have eleven hundred fishing boats. Is it any wonder that the people of
War Appropriation-Labour

British Columbia pictured another Pearl Harbor in that province? One might just as well talk about doing away with the A.R.P. in British Columbia, or on the east coast, as to talk about allowing the Japanese to go back to the coast.
I am glad the minister spoke as he did, because I believe he has drawn a true picture of the situation. I am glad the government moved as it did. Many of us took strong exception to the statement made by Mr. Trueman, who I claim did not know anything about the situation. I have only one thing to say about the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I think he and others outside the house have failed to recognize the great difference there is in the two races. Whether he believes in what I believe in may not matter, but I want to bring this point forcibly before hon. members of the committee. There is a difference between people of German or Italian extraction and those of Japanese. We have hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are of German and Italian descent, but who in the second or third generation have become good Canadians. But who is going to marry into the oriental group? If they do, what will their progeny be? They will be oriental because that is what has happened whenever mixed marriages have taken place. That is one reason why I have taken this stand against the Japanese in British Columbia.
I may be misinformed, but my information is that the Japanese in British Columbia are under the surveillance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that they are moved about under a permit system and do not come under national selective service. If that is correct, I should like to know who is responsible for the large advertisement which appeared in a Japanese paper. There is a magazine published in New Westminster called The Pensioner, which is distributed throughout British Columbia and Alberta. The publishers of this magazine have tried to get some advertising from the minister's department or the government, but they have been turned down, the excuse given to them being that they are a class newspaper. I shall send the two papers along to the Minister of Labour and ask him how much this large advertisement in the Japanese paper cost. This is an advertisement in connection with national selective service and is over his name and the name of his deputy. Yet we could get no consideration for the old age pensioners' magazine. I should 
like to know why a white Canadian magazine could not get any advertising from his department.


George Hugh Castleden: It probably attacks the government on account of its old age pension policy.


Thomas Reid: I will leave the minister to answer that. When I asked the minister how it was that 115 members of the staff of the British Columbia security commission had been placed under the civil service commission, the minister had this to say, as reported at page 4174 of Hansard:
The first appointments were made by Austin Taylor and his commission. Eventually the civil service went into the matter, and they were finally approved by it.
That is just a blanket statement. I wanted to know who interceded on behalf of these people with the civil service commission. I maintain that the civil service commission would not go out deliberately and take these 115 employees within the purview of the commission, these people whose chief qualifications were that they were friends of either the chairman or members of the British Columbia security commission. The minister must accept responsibility, and I should like to know who told the commission what was to be done. I should like an answer to that question.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether my hon. friend knows the procedure, but of course the security commission was permitted to take on these people for sixty days, after which they must be certified by the civil service commission. It is just automatic, and I do not know that I can add anything to that. They were not told to do it; it was done automatically. The civil service commission went in there and certified them.


Thomas Reid: What about the advertisement?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know about that, but I shall be glad to look into it.


Thomas Reid: I should like to know why you are advertising in that paper at all.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend wants to ask a question on the orders of the day I shall be glad to give him the information.


Thomas Reid: It is all very well to say I can ask a question on the orders of the day and probably be ruled out by the Speaker, but now is the time to ask questions in regard to these matters, and I think I am in order. The minister can give me the information privately if he wishes.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right, but if my hon, friend will be fair he will realize

War Appropriation-Labour
that advertising amounting to tens of thousands of dollars passes through the labour department, and to be perfectly frank with my hon. friend I must say that I do not read every newspaper in which advertisements are placed. That would be a physical impossibility. However, I shall be glad to look into the reason why this advertisement appeared in this Japanese language newspaper.


Thomas Reid: And why the other newspaper cannot get any advertising?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, I shall be glad to do that.
Mr. O'NEILL: There has been considerable controversy this evening with respect to this Japanese question. I may not be able to add anything to the debate, and I may repeat things that have been said already, since unfortunately I was not here throughout the discussion, but there are some things I wish to say so that I may not be misunderstood in my own province.
First, I wish to say that I am most emphatically with those hon. members from British Columbia who say that the Japanese must be repatriated to Japan after the war. I have in my hand a magazine put out by the British Columbia security commission entitled, "The Removal of Japanese from the Protected Areas". It is a fine little magazine, with very nice illustrations, and I think gives a fair outline of the work done by that commission. It is not my purpose to-night to quarrel with the members of the British Columbia security commission or with the work they have performed. However, there are some things I wish to call to the attention of the committee with respect to the Japanese.
When it became apparent that the Japanese must be moved out of the protected area, for very good reasons which were well considered by the military authorities of this country, the government erected some of the finest construction camps it has ever been my pleasure to see. These were in the North Thompson area, really from Blue River to Jasper, and the idea was that these men would be put to work to finish the construction of the highway between those points. Provision was made for the accommodation of about 2,000 men, and they were moved in there. Their accommodation, I may say, was far better than that provided for our own unemployed during the depression period; but what did the Japanese do when they went into that area? They started in to stage a succession of strikes against constituted authority in this country, until it become necessary to move them out of there. Now we have these camps, the finest any working man ever went into, standing idle.
It is said that the Japanese cannot be accused of sabotage. That may be true, but I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that by their constant striking they did everything humanly possible to destroy what the government was trying to do for them. Then the British Columbia security commission had Mr. Trueman look into the situation in the North River area, and report. But what did this same Mr. Trueman have to say about the people of British Columbia? This is his statement:
"The reason for mass evacuation of Japanese from Pacific coastal areas," he declared, "was not because of the Japanese, but because of the white residents. The problem was one of mass hysteria and race prejudice."
That is the man who, I believe, is still in the employ of this government, one of those who advise the Department of Labour and national selective service with respect to the Japanese. I do not see how we could expect any conditions other than those we have to-day when we have giving advice to the department a man who knows absolutely nothing about conditions in British Columbia and, I venture to say, very little about the Japanese people. Let us look at what we do for the Japanese people and contrast it with what we do for other people in this country. I have in my hand a statement submitted by the committee for the legal rights of the Finnish organization of Canada. I have no brief for these people; I am not pleading their case, but I wish to cite these conditions in contrast to the conditions in regard to the Japanese. The brief states:
The question of the properties of the Finnish organization of Canada is becoming more acute as the state of illegality continues. The fact that the people who built these halls and other properties and paid for them, often with great sacrifices from their meagre earnings, are denied the use of these properties although they are anxious to use these halls and other properties to the best interests of the Canadian people as a whole, still continues to be the worst thing in this connection. But as the state of illegality continues other factors are arising which aggravate the situation.
Not only are many of these halls standing padlocked and useless, serving no purpose whatsoever, but they are deteriorating very fast, because they are not heated or looked after otherwise. Many of them have already deteriorated to the point that it is very questionable whether it pays to ever repair them again.
Still worse is the fact that the custodians are not paying the running expenses, interests, taxes, insurance, etc., of these properties. The debts of these properties is thus accumulating and piling up against the original owners. This seems to be the case with most of these properties which are standing useless. It has been brought to our attention that at least in some cases even in places where the halls have been continually used, and the custodians no doubt
War Appropriation-Labour

have collected the rent regularly, taxes and other expenses have not been paid. Rouyn, Quebec, is one such ease, and there are no doubt others. In fact this state of affairs has now developed to the point that municipal authorities are in some cases threatening to sell the halls for arrears in taxes. Sprucedale, Ontario, is one of these places.
These people are Canadian citizens; they are allowed to vote and have all the other rights of citizens in this country, but because they belong to an organization which was considered illegal these things are being done to them. On the other hand we have the Japanese, who are not loyal to this country; who, though they may have been born here and are registered here and are supposed to be citizens of this country, are at the same time registered also as citizens of Japan, a country with which we are at war. This seems a very unfair situation, but that is the condition which exists at the present time with respect to the Japanese. I understood that the Japanese boats were all put under a commission, which had authority to sell them or deal with them in any other way, but they had to keep this Japanese property in shape. On the other hand here is the property of real citizens which is not being looked after. It does seem to me that in these instances the Japanese are being used far better than they have any right to expect to be used by this country.
My principal idea in rising to-night was to place myself on record in support of the other hon. members from British Columbia who have spoken with respect to the repatriation of the Japanese after the war.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payment to the provinces in connection with organizing and operating day nurseries and like facilities, $120,000.
Gordon Graydon: This item calls to the
attention of the committee a matter which, I believe, has engaged the sympathetic ear of the people of Canada in a way which has not been accomplished by some other items with which we have dealt. It would be in the interests of the committee and of the public if, before proceeding further, the minister would give a statement respecting the operation of day nurseries. I would suggest that he make a somewhat comprehensive statement in the matter, and that in so doing he would be performing a useful service.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have a statement in
front of me, but I believe it would be unwise to give part of it now and part of it tomorrow. For that reason I would suggest

that we call it eleven o'clock, and that I give the whole statement to-morrow. I would not want to cut it in half.


Gordon Graydon: I agree with the minister. This is a matter in which many hon. members are interested.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Thursday, July 1, 1943