1942-02-19

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Louis Stephen St. Laurent, K.C., member for the electoral district of Quebec East, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. C. G. Power.
Gaspard Fautaux, Esquire, member for the electoral district of St. Mary, Montreal, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. P. J. A. Cardin.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day; .
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) ; Mr. Speaker, it is reported to me that Sir Lyman Duff, the commissioner appointed under order in council to conduct the Hong Kong inquiry, has announced that owing to the nature of a substantial portion of the

Taxation
evidence which will be adduced before the Hong Kong commission, he is satisfied that it would be inadvisable to hold an inquiry in public, and he has decided accordingly. May I ask the Prime Minister if this report is correct? May I add that certainly there are some portions of the evidence to be adduced which would be, in my judgment, of a confidential nature; but there is a large body of evidence which will be produced before the commissioner which, in my view, should be made in public, in the public interest, and especially that part relating to the sending of untrained men overseas, and the action of the department and the government in the premises.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the word my hon. friend has just given the house is the first intimation I have received of the decision of the chief justice in the matter of holding sessions of his commission in secret. I assume my hon. friend's information is wholly reliable.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: I assume it is; I have not had confirmation from the chief justice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume it is, too. Neither of us apparently is aware of the facts. However, at the time I asked the chief justice if he would undertake the inquiry I gave him the assurance that the government would not wish to restrict him in any particular, and that it would be for him to decide how the proceedings should be conducted, what assistance he would require in connection with the conduct of the proceedings, and in fact all matters with respect to the commission. I assume if the chief justice has decided to hold the sittings of the commission in secret, as was the case with the United States inquiry into conditions at Pearl Harbour, he has evidently had the best of reasons for so doing. I do not know that I can say more than that.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question in reference to the invasion of the municipalities' field of taxation. I shall supply him with a copy of it.
The city of Toronto is a municipality contributing huge sums of money in income and corporation taxes. Last June when the appropriation bill was under discussion here I
44o6f-45
suggested that the government should get the opinion of the supreme court of Canada as to whether the federal power has jurisdiction to take away these municipal and provincial revenues and raise moneys for provincial purposes by taxation, which under the British North America Act are allocated to provincial authorities. The point is open to much doubt. The city of Toronto is a large city, and its income and corporation taxes run into many millions of dollars. It is suffering the loss of these revenues, and municipal budgets are all upset, and also the province.
I would suggest that any agreement reached with Ontario herein, when made, be validated1. When it was under discussion last June I made that suggestion. There should be some procedure to validate the taking away from Ontario of these large revenues, especially from municipalities throughout the province. The words, or the definitions of them, are not clear in the appropriation act. I suggest to the minister that when he has the agreement with Ontario completed, he validate what has been done under the agreement; and he should also earmark this money so that the municipal share will go direct to the municipalities, such as Toronto, Hamilton, London, Ottawa and other places. The revenues of the municipalities have been taken away from them so often that we might just as well abolish our municipal institutions.
I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to recoup Ontario and the city of Toronto for the taking away of the income tax and corporation tax revenues under the appropriation bill of last June. If the agreement based on it is to be validated, then the minister should earmark the money for the municipalities so that they can get the money either directly or through the province. I should like to ask the minister if he has any further statement to make in view of this and of Ontario's objections yesterday. He gave a statement yesterday that the first objection was last Friday, asking for validation. I raised this same question when the appropriation and unemployment insurance bills were being considered last June and argued that the federal government had no power to take away these provincial revenues or impose taxes for provincial purposes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: The only way they could do it is by consent of the provinces concerned, and such agreement needs validation.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The question of the validation of the agreements with the provinces is now receiving

Japanese Nationals

the consideration of the Department of Justice. It was assumed throughout the negotiations that this government had been given the authority to enter into these agreements by the relevant section of the supplementary appropriation act which was passed last spring. Last Friday, Mr. Conant, the attorney general of the province of Ontario, for the first time raised the question that this was not sufficient authority and stated that if the province of Ontario entered into an agreement with the dominion they would like it ratified by the parliament of Canada. I told Mr. Conant directly then and there that he was entitled to ask that we have the necessary authority to enter into an agreement and that I would consult the Department of Justice at once and if an act was required, that act would be introduced.


Thomas Langton Church: It savours of British
Honduras, the whole programme.



JAPANESE NATIONALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a question based upon a telegram which I received this morning from the city clerk of Kelowna, British Columbia. This reads as follows:
Copy of resolution passed by municipal council of Kelowna on sixteenth.
Whereas under dominion regulations all male Japanese of military age have to vacate areas west of Cascade range by April 1st; and whereas apparently no supervision or restrictions have been made of this evacuation; and whereas these Japanese are steadily seeping into the Okanagan valley seeking to purchase land, residences and to settle, many ol them coming in new automobiles and acting in a very truculent and insolent manner; and whereas public indignation is being roused to such an extent that violence against this infiltration may easily break out and unless stopped almost certainly will break out;
Be it resolved, (1) that all male Japanese of military age be interned by the dominion government; (2) orders in council be issued prohibiting the sale or lease or rental of land and other real estate to Japanese during the present crisis; (3) any evacuation of other Japanese to east of Cascade be under strict supervision of the dominion government only to such areas as may be deemed advisable where strict police supervision can be made at all times and in 'such a manner as not to arouse popular indignation and outrage.
A copy has been sent to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in position to make a statement which will alleviate the anxiety of those who take charge of the inhabitants of the interior of British Columbia?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend was good enough to send me a telegram which had been received this morning, and while it is not in the same terms as the one he has just read, the purport is much the same.
I would say at once that the policy of the government for the duration of the war is to restrict, except under permit from the Minister of Justice, the acquisition of land by purchase, lease or otherwise by persons of Japanese origin or by Japanese controlled companies.
In replying to my hon. friend, I think I ought perhaps to express just a word of caution with respect to the wording of messages and public utterances generally which may relate to the present position of Japanese nationals and other persons of Japanese origin in Canada at this time. I need not say how critical the situation is and how necessary it is, if we are to maintain law and order in the different communities and prevent hasty and unwarranted action on the part of individuals who may not be sufficiently appreciative of the effect of their actions, for all to be as restrained as possible in the language used in dealing with these difficult questions.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
PLANS TO ENSURE ECONOMIC SECURITY OF nation's WORKERS
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health):	Yesterday
the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) asked a question with reference to old age pensions. I would inform him that this matter does not come within the jurisdiction of my department. His question should be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Finance.
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, as the question I asked yesterday on the orders of the day, at page 687 of Hansard, comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance and not of the Minister of Pensions and National Health, I would ask the Minister of Finance to be good enough to give me an answer at some future day.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I shall be glad to do that.



SS. &quot;LADY HAWKINS&quot; INVESTIGATION OF LOSS IN ATLANTIC BY TORPEDO ATTACK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I forwarded a notice of a

First Victory Loan
question to the Minister of Transport on February 4, and I asked a question publicly on February 13. I am wondering if the Minister	of	National	Defence	for Naval
Services has drawn it to his attention. If so, may I have a reply on this question about the sinking of'the Lady Hawkins'!


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Transport):: I understand that the subject matter of the question asked by my hon. friend comes within the purview of the Minister	of	National	Defence	for NavalServices.	I understand	that the	minister is
now or will be quite soon 'in a position to give an answer.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: May I be permitted to say that in the interests of the relatives of those who perished	on	the Lady Hawkins-I am
speaking of the passengers as well as the crew-some assurance should be given that a thorough investigation will be held into the loss of this ship.

Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, I can now give the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwelll) an answer to the question he asked the other day respecting an investigation of the loss in the Atlantic of the SS. Lady Hawkins.
The matter of routing, diverting and protecting shipping is a naval responsibility of the allied powers and strictly cannot be discussed in public or made known to our enemies.
It may be said, however, that the SS. Lady Hawkins was independently routed, not convoyed. She saiilled from a United States port after the British Consular Shipping Adviser had consulted with the master of the ship and had issued relevant instructions and precautions. The Consular Shipping Adviser works closely with the United States port director.
When the Commander in Chief, America and West Indies, reported that the Lady Hawkins was overdue, an investigation was oarried out by instruction of the Chief of the Naval Staff of Canada. Nothing has come to light to indicate that the regrettable loss of this ship is anything other than an unavoidable accident of war.



FIRST VICTORY LOAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: On the orders of the day, on Tuesday last,
the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) requested information as to the amount of 1941 victory loan bonds that had been sold by original purchasers and1 had reached the hands of banks and lending institutions.
I have had inquiries made to see whether I could add anything to the remarks I made on Tuesday. I learn that it is practically impossible to make even a rough estimate of what holdings have been sold since the time of their original purchase. The hon. member will realize that in the 1941 victory loan, bonds in bearer form were issued in denominations from $50 up to $25,000. These bonds are sold in the open market and pass freely from hand to hand without any record of such sales being registered in the Bank of Canada.
It might prove useful to place on record the figures for the combined total security holdings of the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks as at June 30, 1941, immediately after the sale of the 1941 victory loan and as at December 31, 1941, the latest available date. On June 30, 1941, the holdings of dominion and provincial direct and guaranteed securities totalled $2,085,220,028, and on December 31, 1941, the holdings of these securities totalled $2,124,401,449, or an increase of only $39,181,421.
However, in that period there were a number of factors that would affect these figures to some extent, namely, an increase in the amount outstanding of Dominion of Canada treasury bills, maturities of dominion and provincial issues, etc. The very satisfactory market which has prevailed on these victory bonds is a further indication of the fact that they could not have been sold1 in any large volume. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that there is nothing in the situation as a whole to cause any worry.
At the same time, I think I should repeat what I said on Tuesday, namely, that in the case of the short term bonds more sales appear to have been made by original purchasers than I would have liked to see. I did not regard this situation as very satisfactory and I trust that in the present offering those who buy the short term issues will do so with the intention of holding them.



INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF INCREASED PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford):	I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to inform the house whether an announcement will be made regarding an increased price for wheat before the prairie farmers begin their spring ploughing.
Airgraph Service
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member's question should have been addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In reply I would say that the matter has been receiving consideration, and we had hoped to have reached some finality by this time, but I expect that we shall reach finality in our recommendations within a very few days.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Will the bill be referred to the agriculture committee?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is the intention.



AIRGRAPH SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I would
ask the Postmaster General, with respect to the sending of airgraph letters overseas, first, whether his department has been able to ascertain the length of time it takes on the average for letters mailed in Canada to reach the troops overseas; and, second, whether this same airgraph service is being extended to the troops overseas so that they may send airgraph letters home to Canada.


Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General) :: The hon. member for Parkdale was
kind enough to advise me in advance that he intended to ask for this information to-day. In reply to his first question, the shortest time is five days and the average is twelve days, which time will doubtless be materially reduced when climatic conditions are more favourable. In reply to his second question, the United Kingdom and Canadian postal administrations have already studied the establishment of a return airgraph service. Inauguration depends on the establishment of a regular, direct airplane service of reasonable frequency from the United Kingdom to Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: Has any consideration
been given to the extension of the airgraph service to our men serving in the middle east? If not, will the minister give it consideration? I had an inquiry regarding that in to-day's mail.


William Pate Mulock: Does the hon. member
mean service from England to the middle east, or from Canada?


Major James William Coldwell: From Canada.
.


William Pate Mulock: I shall be glad to obtain
the information and give the hon. member an answer in the course of the next day or so.



PETITION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a petition signed by 1,100 residents of the municipality of Saanich which I ask permission to lay on the table at this time. Saanich is in the county of Nanaimo, and as the representative for that district is at present serving overseas,
I am laying this petition on the table in his behalf. I shall not read the whole petition but just the substance of the prayer, namely:
We therefore do earnestly petition the government of the Dominion of Canada to take immediate steps to eliminate all possibility of subversive acts by the resident Japanese in this province.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Alphonse Fournier for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Pouliot.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with respect to the amendment to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) I should like to ask whether Your Honour has considered whether the amendment to the amendment is in order. I respectfully submit that it is not in order inasmuch as it deals with a future contingency with respect to which it is impossible for any final opinion to be pronounced at the present time.
First of all I would point out to hon. members that, as they are well aware, while an amendment may deal with three or four different subjects it has to be considered as a whole, and if any one part of it is out of order the amendment as a whole would necessarily be declared out of order. The amendment to the amendment is couched in language which in part would read: Your Excellency's advisers are contemplating, with regard to conscription of man-power for overseas service, a reversal of policy which is uncalled for, untimely and detrimental to the defence of Canada.

The Address-Point oj Order
How can any hon. member say what the ministry is contemplating, and contemplating with respect to a situation that may or may not arise in the future? I should like to ask whether an amendment on the following lines would not perhaps be in accord with what hon. gentlemen opposite who are smiling at the moment have not been saying right along: That the ministry are contemplating, with regard to conscription of man-power for overseas service, a continuation of the policy which has been in existence since this parliament came into being. An amendment setting forth either point of view as to what is in contemplation by the ministry would, I submit, be out of order, inasmuch as it would relate to some future action by the government which cannot be decided at the present time, and which, as has frequently been said from this side of the house, if the government is given a free hand to deal with the important matters to which this particular amendment relates, will be decided in the light of all the circumstances as they exist.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) for his remarks, but I regret that he has said that this subamendment has been moved for political motives. Here, sir, is the definition of the word "contemplate" in the house copy of the Oxjord Dictionary which I have just taken from the table:
Contemplate. . . . Gaze upon; view mentally; expect; intend, purpose; meditate. So Contemplation . . . (templum temple, open space for observation).
Now, no one besides the members of the cabinet knows what happens behind closed doors in the east block. But here, sir, is the speech from the throne which I hold in my hand and which contains the following paragraph, as reported in Hansard of this year, page 4:
My ministers accordingly will seek, from the people, by means of a plebiscite, release from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service.
The words "overseas conscription" are not mentioned in that paragraph. But let us see the wording of the amendment. The first paragraph reads thus:
This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers are contemplating, with regard to conscription of man-power for overseas service, a reversal of policy which is uncalled for, . . .
The only difference between the wording of the amendment and the wording of the speech from the throne is that in the amendment the word "overseas" is included. On the other hand, if you take the warding of the speech from ithe throne, one article of the programme of the government is to seek release from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service. Very well; I believe that the amendment, which was very carefully drafted, is in line with the speech from the throne, and I will further submit that, technically, the Prime Minister can say that no one knows whait the government contemplate, but when the government come with a programme for the whole session, and when an article of that programme is to relieve the government of all restrictions concerning military service, it seems to me that it is perfectly in order 'to move an amendment with the wording of the one I have had the honour to move. I rely upon you, sir, and your knowledge-which is much greater than mine-of the English language, and your knowledge and experience of the rules and practice of this house, to render an unbiased decision. It is a matter which becomes purely legal. The whole thing is to decide whether
The Address-Point of Order

the speech from the throne indicates that the government is contemplating a change, whatever it is, regarding military service in this oountry. I leave the matter in your hands to decide whether the subamendment is in order or not.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Might I, with all respect to the Prime Minister, ask him if he can give the house some precedent or ruling as to whether or not the amendment to the amendment is out of order. Has the question not come previously before this house or another' house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I have not precedents at hand. I have no doubt that many could be found and cited. I can only say to my hon. friend that I think anyone familiar with the rules of the house with respect to amendments will agree that the point of view I have taken accords with the rules of the house as they are laid down with respect to motions in debate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not a fact that this is a brand new point and has never 'been heard of before?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With reference to the remarks made by hon. members on the amendment to the amendment made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), I have been considering yesterday and this morning the relevancy of this amendment.
The hon. member for Temiscouata has moved as an amendment to the amendment on the address, a subamendment containing these words:
This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers are contemplating, with regard to conscription of man-power for overseas service, a reversal of policy. . . .
In answer to the statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), I take it that the plain meaning of the word "contemplating" used by the hon. member for Temiscouata is the putting into effect now of a reversal of policy, and he refers specifically to the conscription of man-power for overseas service.
The house cannot now entertain an amendment to this subamendment which deals with a future action of the government. The rule is well known that not more than two amendments can be moved at a time. For this reason it is necessary that the strictest rules of interpretation be applied to a second amendment.
A motion of no confidence-and this I may interject is a motion of no confidence-based on the fact that the government has reversed its policy, would be in order, but to base such

a motion on the unproved assumption that the government is just contemplating a reversal of policy seems to be holding the government responsible for something it has not yet done. If such a practice is encouraged the only limit to no confidence motions will be the collapse of human imagination. What the government is contemplating is a fact which the government alone knows and which is not supported by the speech from the throne, neither by the Prime Minister's statements during this session nor any measure now before the house. It is an assumption which the house is asked to vote upon without the government having the opportunity to modify it by another amendment; for the reason, as I have already said, that there can be only two amendments before the house at one and the same time, and the government therefore is in the position of having no opportunity to modify it by another amendment.
What is the object of an amendment? It is, as May says, to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting. The impossibility of moving a further amendment in this case is all the more serious because the amendment, being against the adoption of the address, is a motion of want of confidence based on the government's future action of which the house can have no knowledge. For that reason it is futile and should not be allowed. I therefore rule the subamendment out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I respectfully appeal from your decision, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The speaker having decided that the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is out of order, the hon, member for Temiscouata appeals from that decision.


Georges Parent: The question is on the amendment.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss this afternoon the question of the Japanese in British Columbia. Since it is an important and burning question there at the present time, it is almost impossible to tell the tale in the required time, and I may ask to have a few minutes longer. If so, it will be the first time I have had to do so.
I am not unmindful, nor shall I try to be, of the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he warned against hasty and unwarranted language, calculated to inflame the situation in British Columbia, as regards Japanese. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to that appeasement talk for twenty years from the government benches, and I think the time has come to take a different stand. I believe we can best serve the interests of our country, and promote peace, by having plain talk, straightforward discussions and, I hope, definite action, with respect to the issues before us.
In the first campaign in which I took part for election to this house in the fall of 1921, I was struck by two outstanding features in the district, first, the predominant place the Japanese had acquired in the fishing industry, and, second, the vast increase in their population in British Columbia, both through immigration and by birth. The fishing industry was dominated by the Japanese during the last war, when our men were overseas. Then, later, they started a policy of pushing the white men out of that industry. The methods they adopted in that procedure were too often those which are not expected in ordinajry business competition.
Early in 1922 I got the then government of the day to make a cut in the quota of fishing
The Address-Mr. Neill

licences allotted to Japanese in salmon trolling-a part of the fishing industry-to the extent of thirty-three per cent. Later, in the summer, a royal commission was appointed, and it decided to out all Japanese salmon fishing licences to the extent of forty per cent. The following year they were again cut another fifteen per cent, and the year after that another ten per Cent. This made a very substantial reduction, which has been since maintained.
The house is aware that a few weeks ago all Japanese fishing vessels, numbering about 1,200, were seized. If the influx had been allowed to continue, and had not been checked in 1922, as I have described, the number now to be seized would have been something like 3,000 or possibly 3,500. That would have greatly aggravated the situation in British Columbia to-day.
Then, let us look at the other point, namely their increase in numbers by immigration and by birth. The Japanese birthrate is about double that of the white race-rather more than that. And that, of course, goes on all the time. We can stop immigration, but we cannot stop increases by birth, especially when the Japanese government allows to emigrate only those women who are likely to bear children. If they do not have those children, they are sent back to Japan, and others are sent out in their places.
Prior to 1884 there was no immigration of Japanese into British Columbia. From that time until 1907 they came in in ever-increasing numbers, until the situation became alarming. Then the government of the day- a Liberal government, by the way-made a deal with Japan or, as they called it, a gentleman's agreement. On the face of it, it was an arrangement whereby Japan pledged itself to see that no more than 400 Japanese left Japan to come to Canada in one year. No greater travesty of language could be found than to call that a gentleman's agreement, because when one makes a gentleman's agreement it is presupposed that both parties to the agreement are animated by the desire and intention to adhere to it in faith, truth and honesty. But when you find that one of the parties has not the slightest intention of adhering to those principles, control becomes much more difficult. In other words, in those circumstances a gentleman's agreement is just a joke. I have said1 that the matter was a joke, and I make that statement sincerely because I found that instead of only 400 entering Canada in any one year, the Japanese were entering to the extent of 1,700. That is a matter of record; I have taken it from the records. Then, the other

part of the contract was such that the whole matter was left wide open. I shall leave that part of the subject for the moment.
In the spring of 1922, for once in their lives the British Columbia members had sense enough to take united action. I do not believe they have ever done it since, nor do I think it had been done before. We all got together-I believe there were four groups at that time-and presented a resolution to the house asking for the total exclusion of orientals from British Columbia and Canada. The government opposed the resolution and moved to amend it by striking out the words "total exclusion" and inserting the words "effective restriction". Of course the government's majority carried the amendment. We were told at that time that the two expressions were synonymous, and that the term "effective restriction" meant total exclusion. The government majority carried the amendment-and that was the end of total exclusion. It did not operate as we had been led to believe.
Time has gone on and taken its toll of those fourteen members who supported that principle. There have been deaths, both politically and physically at one end of the rainbow, and the senate and big government appointments at the other end. All these have reduced that little band to the point where I am the only one left. I can say, like the man in the Bible-in the Book of Job, I believe it was; some of my parson friends can correct me if I am wrong-"I only am escaped alone to tell thee." I continued pressing the matter as best I could, but I found that governments were not sympathetic.
There was too much talk of appeasement in the air. One of the arguments was this, "We want to do a big trade with Japan, with her seventy million people. We do not want to lose that trade. If we do anything they don't like they will take their trade to the United States." That argument had some plausibility; at any rate it was good enough to stall me off for a year or two.
Then I saw the psychological moment open in 1924. The government of the United States, out of a clear sky, passed a total exclusion act against orientals, including Japanese. There was our chance to do the same, without loss of trade. I begged the then Prime Minister- the same one as we have to-day-to make it apply to all orientals; but he could not see his way clear to do so. He did apply it to Chinese, and that action has been most successful. Unfortunately, however, it was not applied to Japanese.

The /Iddress-Mr. Neill
I continued from time to time to do what I could; and then along about 1928-possibly it was 1929-the Prime Minister was kind enough-and I give him full credit for it, because he did not have to do it-to readjust the joint agreement so that instead of an entry of 400 a year there would be only 150. He put some teeth in the terms of that agreement, so that we really had at least a gambler's chance of enforcing it. I believe the Japanese with their accustomed ability and subtlety found loopholes whereby at least to some extent they evaded the terms of the arrangement, but not to any great extent. Then, of later years the war has stopped any serious immigration.
I was told at that time that there were other reasons why we should not do anything to offend the Japanese nation, reasons of a diplomatic nature. I remember as well as if it were yesterday the answer I gave-I believe it is in Hansard-"The house and government might be assured that the Japanese nation would attack us the very moment it suited them, no matter what we had done by way of appeasement, favours or anything else." The very moment it suited them to attack us they would do so-and to-day tells the answer.
If my advice had been taken, even as late as 1924, to-day there would have been in Canada perhaps 5,000 or 6,000 fewer Japanese than there are to-day. Six thousand taken from 24,000 would have helped to ease this very acute situation which exists in British Columbia to-day.
I continued to look anxiously at the situation, and in 1938 I thought I had another opportunity. I brought in a bill to provide for an educational test. The Japanese were not mentioned by name, but the provisions of this bill would have applied to three-quarters of the world's population. If it had been put into force, it would have set up a method which has been used in Australia and New Zealand for thirty years without any objection from the Japanese. This has helped to keep Australia and New Zealand white. The government refused to allow my bill to go through. The matter was put to a vote and, if hon. members are interested in the matter, they will find it fully set out in Hansard of May 31, 1938, at page 3411. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) should be proud now that they withstood the pressure of the whip at that time and voted in the interests of their province rather than at the dictates of the party. In justice to ithe hon. member for Victoria, B. C. (Mr. Mayhew), I must say that he was sick at home at the time and could not possibly be here.
In September, 1940, Japan signed the deal, agreement or whatever you call it with Italy and Germany. In plain English, they bound themselves to enter into war against us and the United States whenever it suited Germany or Hitler. Pressure was put upon the government by British Columbia, and I suppose some realization of the situation also led the government to take action. They appointed a hand-picked committee to investigate the subject, which committee came back with a number of recommendations, I believe ten in all. There were only two of any importance, Nos. 5 and 7, and I shall deal with them. No. 5 recommended against allowing Japanese to enlist in our volunteer army then being raised. That was a very good idea, otherwise we would have had perhaps 1,500 Japanese training in our army, possibly in key positions, petty officers and the like. They would have been familiar with every detail of our army operations. Protests were made by the mayor of Nanaimo, and I think by other cities and by myself, and the recommendation of the committee carried. That was all right.
Recommendation No. 7 was that there should be a re-registration of the Japanese in Canada. It had 'been claimed by many people that the registration that had been taken was just a fake as regards the Japanese. Only those who felt like it registered, and there was a demand for a new registration. The recommendation was that they should be photographed at the same time. That was a good idea, but it had one fatal defect, if deception is regarded as a fatal defect. It was clearly understood that this registration was compulsory. We were told how well it was going on, how successful it was, and it was hoped that we malignants would now be satisfied and keep quiet. The whole thing turned on the point that it was compulsory.
If it had been voluntary, what use would it have been? Supposing we decided to make a history of the people by the name of Smith, to have a record of everything they had done, whether they had been in gaol and so on. If this was carried on voluntarily, how many Smiths would come forward except those with clean hands? Was it expected that Japanese who had entered the country illegally would come forward and say, "Yes, I came in illegally, take me." Of course they would not. A Jap is not a fool, any more than we are. The guilty ones did not register and the whole thing was a gigantic failure. It could not be otherwise if it were anything but compulsory.
Our main complaint was that many of them had come into the country illegally and this re-registration would have discovered that. Was it expected that those who had come in

The Address-Mr. Neill

illegally would disclose that fact? The thing is ridiculous. When the war came on, after Pearl Harbour, it was discovered that it was not compulsory, that it was just a gesture to keep us quiet, just a farce. Then what happened? The war was on and the people know what war means; this government should know what it means. These same people were given two months in which to register; they were given until February 7 to get things fixed up, to get a fake birth certificate or a forged entry card. You can buy them in Vancouver. If they could not get either, they were given two months before they would be subject to the same action as that to which any other enemy alien would be exposed. Why give them two months? We were practically saying to them, "We are at war with you, but we will give you two months in which to get faked papers, or get out of the country." I never heard the like of it before, and I hope I never shall again.
If I were challenged to offer proof of these things, I could no more do it than I could offer proof of the day of the week on which my last birthday fell. You do not keep track of these things that are so well known. I suppose I could have kept the newspapers that I read at the time, but I did not. I never dreamed that such action would be necessary to show that they had said it was compulsory. On February 9, the Prime Minister made this statement, as reported on page 398 of Hansard.
The committee received the utmost cooperation from Japanese nationals as well as from Canadians of Japanese racial origin. When a state of war was proclaimed as existing between Japan and Canada, the registration was all but complete.
The utmost cooperation! We know the extent of that cooperation. Here is what a man wrote-a white man for a change, and perhaps we can take his word-to the local paper in Vancouver a few days ago:
About three years ago I was talking to a Canadian-born Japanese boy in a store and said to him, "if the Japs ever came over here would you fight against us?" He replied, "I wouldn't want to, but I would either have to or commit suicide."
That is the sort of blind it is. There is your cooperation. Only when they attacked Pearl Harbour was it announced that the whole thing had been only voluntary. Here is an article that appeared in the papers a few days afterwards:
During the registration proceedings, several hundred Japanese left Canada for Japan. Most of these were known to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Many of them were believed to have entered the country illegally.

It is only after war breaks out that we discover all that. They were given two months in which to fix things up or get out. If that registration had been compulsory, we would have got the best of these Jap agents and the best of their spies. They have now gone home with their charts and plans and with a local knowledge that could not be bought for any money. Perhaps we shall see some of these Japs again peering over the side of the bridge of a German gunboat in Vancouver, Nanaimo or Port Alberni, because we now know that many of them were expert naval men. Agitation continued, and the government called a conference which was held here on January 8 and 9. With possibly one or two exceptions, the twenty-five gentlemen who attended this conference were in government service. Their continuing or advancement in the branch of the service in which they were, might depend upon-putting it politely-their thinking the same way as the government about these matters.
I suggested that they should call in the British Columbia members who were elected by the people and who have some claim to represent the people. But, oh, no I I should like to give another quotation. I shall not give names because I do not think it is fair to attack people when they are not in a position to reply. When an official is mentioned, I shall refer to an official, and when reference is made to a member of the government, I shall simply call him a minister I quote:
I fail to see any need of getting the members from British Columbia together and asking them what they think should be done.
They were not called together, but the twenty-five government officials were there in full strength. They were fully informed of the government's views because some came from the Department of External Affairs.
I have here the statement got out by the Prime Minister. This is an official document, after the conference had reported, and so there is no harm in my quoting from it. It contains seventeen paragraphs, a great many of which are build-ups for the rest of it. I will deal with the more important ones, paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 11.
Paragraph 6 recommends that the government should seize immediately the Japanese fishing boats. That was done. It was done immediately war was declared, and for that action I have nothing but the utmost praise. It was done promptly and thoroughly. I have a vague idea that I see in it the efficient hand of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald). At any rate it

The Address-Mr. Neill
was done, and done well. While this is not part of the report, I may as well finish up that matter by saying that after they had 1,200 Japanese boats in their hands, the question arose, what to do with them? It was desirable to get them back into fishing again, so that white men could catch the fish so badly needed for the British market. Therefore they set up a committee to try to sell these boats. Whoever chose that committee deserves great credit. They made excellent choices. Here they are: Chairman, Hon. Mr. Justice Sidney Smith, a man with a master mariner's papers, so he would understand boats; Commander B. L. Johnson, D.S.O., R.C.N.R., a man of outstanding ability and repute in Vancouver. Then there was a Japanese, Kishizo Kimura, who I am told, is a very able man, familiar with the work that he undertook. I give all credit for that. Like all government offices, it is true that they were rather slow in going about their work, but they got started at last. They issued a circular, a copy of which I hold in my hand, explaining their procedure. I am very glad to get this circular because I can pass the information along to the fishermen, who are continually writing to me to know what to do. I am afraid that the whole scheme will not be entirely successful because the government will have left on their hands hundreds of boats. That is not the fault of the government or of this committee. Well, they got this thing started and have sold fifty-six boats up to date, and marvellous to relate, they told the members of parliament about it. They even accepted a suggestion I made-another remarkable thing. I suggested that they could not sell these boats for cash because the fishermen did not have cash, but they would be able to buy them on time, and accordingly that was arranged. The general idea of a lot of these officials, the people on these new boards, seems to be that there is no loyalty, intelligence or usefulness in any member of parliament. I do not know where they get the idea because it is not so very long since the people elected us. But that is the idea you find among the people on these new boards and among these dollar-a-year men. Since we are not told what is being done, we shall have to guess or simply deal with what we see, and if we guess wrong, the government is to blame. I do not think members of parliament are any more unworthy than they were in years gone by.
I want to quote recommendation 7 in which was contained the policy of the cabinet. It reads:
For the same period

That is during the war.
-the sale of gasoline and explosives to persons of Japanese racial origin will be directly con-44561- 46)
trolled under conditions to be prescribed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
That is a good idea too, a very good idea, but unfortunately I read in the papers-I have to go to the press for information because I cannot get it anywhere else-that these sales are still going on.


Mr. HOMUTH:: The sale of powder is still going on?


Alan Webster Neill: Explosives. A man wrote to the Vancouver Province the other day and suggested that if this order was in effect, why was the Japanese station at the comer still selling gas the same as usual? That has been going on for two and a half months now, and I rather think permission has been extended to the 1st of April. The language is doubtful, but if it can be interpreted to the benefit of the Japanese, be sure it will be so interpreted. You are dealing with clever, subtle, unscrupulous enemies-and they are enemies -and when you say that you are not going to stop the sale for two months, that is just an invitation to them to accumulate as much gas and explosives as they can in the meantime. We say to them: "Remember, on the 7th of February or on the 1st of April we are going to shut down on you." Is that not an invitation to them to get explosives and gasoline against a rainy day? That time limit should never have been put in. The order should have been made applicable at once.
I want to say one more good thing for the government, and it will be the last, I am sorry to say. It does not pay to state your case unfairly, and I wish to be strictly fair. In these two instances I have mentioned, the seizing of the Japanese boats, and this order with respect to the sale of gasoline and explosives was made applicable to all Japanese, and all honour is due to the government for doing it.
There are three classes of Japanese we must deal with. There are the Japanese nationals, those born in Japan and never naturalized in Canada; they are Japanese nationals. Then there is the man born in Japan and naturalized in Canada. He is called a naturalized Japanese or a Canadian. Then there is the Japanese who was born in Canada, who can call himself a Japanese-Canadian if he likes. The government orders with regard to seizing the boats and the sale of gas and explosives applied to all three classes. That was all right.
Now I deal with paragraph 8. It says that Japanese nationals will be forbidden to possess or use short-wave receiving sets or radio transmitters in Canada. A most excellent thing. Hon. members can all understand why it was necessary to do that. That was fine. But it
The Address-Mr. Neill

does not come into effect until the 1st of April. Did the Japanese give us four months' notice of what they were going to do at Pearl Harbour? Yet we say to them: "Go wandering about with your cameras and take pictures, and use your receiving sets to send word to Japan, and your receivers to get instructions from Japan. You can do this as much as you like until the 1st of April." Even if the order had been withheld, and they had been allowed to continue doing these things without being told of any date when they must stop, it would not have been so bad, because then they would never have known when the order was coming into force. But they were warned-you will not be interfered with until the 1st of April. The order was the equivalent of that. We told them: "Do your dirty work now. Use your radio and your receiving set but, remember, hide or bury them before the 1st of April, and then everything will 'be lovely." They told the Japanese nationals that they must not use these things in a protected area. But they can use them outside. I have a police order to that effect. It is signed by the police and says:
No enemy alien shall have in his possession or use while in such protected area any camera, radio transmitter, radio short-wave receiving set, firearm, ammunition or explosive.
But that order does not apply outside the protected area, and it does not apply to a naturalized or native-born Japanese.


Mr. RALSTON:: I am not quite familiar with the regulations as to cameras, but does my hon. friend suggest that the same date applied with regard to evacuating a protected area, and the possession of cameras? They must evacuate by April 1.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend used the same date, April 1, when speaking of cameras and receiving sets.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. I said that the language was so ambiguous that it could be read two ways. It reads:
Notices ordering all enemy aliens to evacuate the coastal area of British Columbia west of the Cascade mountains by April 1 and to surrender cameras and radios will be posted in public buildings to-day.
Then:
Orders to Japanese ... to get out of the coastal areas within forty-seven days and to surrender cameras, radios and other banned articles, were issued to-day.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend is reading some sort of newspaper paraphrase of the order. The order to give up radios

and cameras is effective immediately. The order of evacuation is not. The order referred to, is effective on April 1.


Alan Webster Neill: It is signed by Colonel Hill, and states that no enemy alien shall have in his possession or use while in such protected area any camera, radio transmitter, radio short-wave receiving set, firearm, ammunition or explosive.


James Layton Ralston: That is effective immediately. You don't wait until April 1 for that.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, as I said, it is doubtful. There is, however, no question whatever that a man who is not a Japanese national can do these things any time, any place. The order applies only to nationals; that is, to men born in Japan and coming over here, and these are comparatively few in number, something like 1,700 out of 24,000, and only while they are in the area. The remaining 22,000 of naturalized Japanese are free to come and go, as I have said, anywhere. They can photograph what they like, radio what they like. They can do something else which I have not touched upon, and which is-not to make a joke-a burning question in British Columbia. Three, two, one of them can do endless damage in British Columbia with a box of matches. The most deadly enemy of the lumber industry in British Columbia is fire. Lumbermen are so afraid of it, it is so dangerous, that they shut their camps down in the middle of summer, as soon as the humidity reaches a certain point. A man can wander out in that bush, ten, fifty, a hundred miles from anywhere, and do more damage with a box of matches than it would take two armies to put out. The large number of forest rangers whom we have could not touch the fringe of the thing if these aliens were determined to commit sabotage. Some of the biggest lumbermen on the coast are much alarmed at this situation. If the Japanese were out of the area, they could not do this damage, because you can't do a thing if you are not there.
I have spoken of the freedom of Japanese to come and go with cameras, radios and matches. That is not restricted to two months or four months; that is for eternity, if the war lasts that long; it is for the duration of the war that the naturalized or Canadian-born Jap can go out and commit sabotage; he is free to do it the whole time, and he is the most dangerous of the lot. The naturalized Japanese speaks our language fluently, possibly he has been to college. He possesses far greater potentialities of trouble as a spy or an agent than if he had just come from

The Address-Mr. Neill
Japan. The fellow dressed up like a white man, speaking our language glibly, is the one who should be interned. It is very hard for me to believe that the government are so remote from what is taking place or may take place as not to understand the situation.
Paragraph 10 of the statement to which I referred makes a rather vague reference to the establishment of a civil corps for Canadian and naturalized Japanese. Because the project is a voluntary one, and in view of the vagueness to which I have referred, I imagine that presently it will fade away.
I should now like to make three charges against the government. The first is this, that, with the exception of seizing these boats, they have been far too slow in handling the Japanese situation. They have let days go by when it should have been hours, and a month when it should have been days. Look at what was done in Mexico. There the government dealt with the whole lot as soon as war was declared, and ordered into the interior every Jap who was on the coast. They did it; they didn't talk about it. Cuba did the same thing. They arrested, I believe, eighteen Japanese, all but two of whom were naval officers. Nicaragua took the same course, and took it speedily.


Mr. CRERAR:: Could m3' hon. friend tell the house-I am merely asking for information-what has been done in the United States?


Alan Webster Neill: No. I have not made myself familiar with what is happening there. I know that on the Pacific coast they took prompt steps. But they did not have the same incentive and need for action as we have, because there were not fishermen in the state of Washington; most Japanese there worked in paper mills and the like of that. But I am not in a position to state in detail what was done. I have troubles enough of my own. I do know what the situation is in British Columbia.
The only reason why we have not had a Pearl Harbour bombing in Canada is that we have no Pearl Harbour to bomb.
I note here that the council of the city of Vancouver has passed a resolution urging the government to get a move on. The report speaks of increasing irritation and criticism at the coast over the apparent failure of the government to implement its announced policy of removing Japanese.
The legislature of British Columbia, before adjourning a few days ago, passed unanimously a resolution urging the dominion government to strengthen Pacific defences. The feeling is very strong at the coast. I wish I could get the government to realize it.
Here is one incident I must quote, reported under a big headline in a leading Vancouver paper, the Daily Province:
Japanese live undisturbed on dike adjoining airport.
There are 200 Japanese living a mile west of the airport. They are living on a dike. It would be very easy to blow up or open that dike, and the airport would be rendered useless for a long time to come. Yet they are living undisturbed within a mile of the airport; they are on a dike into which a gap could be blown with a few sticks of powder that would make the airport useless for a long time to come. Why does the government not take some action in this case?
The second charge is that even the small restrictions to which I have referred are applicable only to nationals, and I say it is inexcusable that they are not made applicable to all naturalized Japanese aliens in this country. To whom do you suppose they think they owe lo3'alty? If they were scattered all over Canada, the case might be different, but think whait may happen when they are turned loose in a small area, when
25,000	are concentrated in an area where they could so readily combine to take action against Vancouver, or Victoria, as the case may be. It constitutes an unspeakable menace; I cannot understand why it is allowed to continue.
The third charge is that the government have shown indifference to British Columbia defence, also to air raid precautions work and the like of that. I am not blaming the government for preparations which they might have made six years ago. That is not their fault;
I know that. We could not get the appropriation through the house. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation moved resolutions condemning the government for proposing, as the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) did, to spend some money for these purposes. But I do blame the government for not having taken the situation in hand since war was declared. They are too slack; they appear to adopt the attitude, "Oh, well, we have to take chances; we are doing the best we can; it will be all right." Well, they told us it would be all right about Hong Kong. But people make mistakes-even military men, even high military men. They told us it would be all right at Singapore. Yet we know that mistakes were made there. Here is the government's paper, the Vancouver Sun, expressing; this opinion:
Canada obviously has not made its plan of defence on the assumption of any real attack on the Pacific coast. . . . That is the plan which must be reconsidered ... we do expect
The Address-Mr. Neill

a well-equipped, mobile striking unit which could pounce upon any Japanese landing attempt from Alaska southwards.
No such force exists on our coast. No such force exists in Canada.
I am afraid that is too true. Perhaps in the secret session which is to be held we shall be given more information on this matter.
I do not propose to blame the government for things which happened before they had control and knowledge cf the situation, or for not having done what at the time was beyond their power. But the government must be ready at that secret session to give us genuine information, not general assurances and smooth-sounding platitudes. There has been too much of this in connection with the management of the war.
There is a certain place-I will not name names, I will call it Y. When the government began to think about building aerodromes I thought that Y would make a good site for one, and I said so. I put it up to the officials, and they said that they were experts and ought to know better than I did. Well, I accepted that decision-but they are building that aerodrome now with frantic haste. I fear we may have to paraphrase the hymn and say:
Too late, too late will be the cry
The Japanese gunboats have gone by.
There was another aerodrome at a place we will call X. I wrote to the government in connection with this one, informing them that there were two things wrong about it. This was a year or two ago. I pointed out to the officials that there was a Jap village 200 yards from the mouth of it where the Japs could take photographs and keep a record of any aeroplanes leaving, with all the details, so that they could have it all recorded for the benefit of the Japanese. They were about as far from the mouth of the aerodrome as Sparks street would be from where I am standing. I have in my desk a letter in which some official tried to stall me off. I was told that they would expropriate the Japanese, but that they could not do it because there was some hitch. However, they said they would look into the matter. Imagine looking into the question of expropriating this particular property when other nations, as we know, take first what they require and then talk about expropriation. Again, I pointed out to the officials that there was a Jap who had been seen taking photographs from an aeroplane over the harbour, where the aerodrome was being built. It was a civilian aeroplane. I took this matter up with various bodies- I will not mention any names because I do not wish to give them away-and what was
fMr. Neill.1
the answer? I was informed that the investigation was closed. They had ascertained the name of the man and had found that he had gone to Japan. I suppose he took photographs with him as a memento of us because he loved us so much. Well, he has gone back to Japan with whatever photographs he took- we do not know how many-and God knows how many more may have gone there. But the officials did not seem to think it was important. I was told that it would be difficult to take photographs through the glass of any aeroplane unless you had a particular sort of apparatus with which to do it. Well, would the Japanese not have that type of apparatus?
I submitted all these matters to the department, and I have it all on record. One of the officials said to me, "There is nothing to this anyhow because it is not against the laws of the country to take photographs of an aerodrome."
I took it up with some of the higher officials, and they juggled with it and finally explained that they could get the Japs under the Official Secrets Act. The aerodrome is still there; the Japs are still staying there under their four months' lease of life, and doubtless they are still taking these photographs, which I have no doubt will be sent to the right place.
These men are not all Canadian nationals. Some of them may be the very best class of spies and foreign agents, and I contend that there has been too much sympathy for the Japanese viewpoint and Japanese interests. We must remember that we are at war with these people. Ottawa is 3,000 miles away from us out there, and it is useful to have a man here who is familiar with conditions on the coast to advise. So they sent for a man who for ten or fifteen years had been notorious -there is no other word by which to describe his activities-in the province of British Columbia, for his championship of the Japanese, for his advocacy of their interests. He was a protagonist of the Japanese. There was never a man who believed so strongly and implicitly in Japan.


Georges Parent: The hon. member has
exceeded his time, and he may proceed only with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Go ahead.


Alan Webster Neill: I thank the house and the
Prime Minister; I have never asked for this licence before. To proceed, I may say that a great deal of ill-will has been excited in British Columbia. The people out there said that this man was paid a big salary as a provincial official, and they wanted to know

The Address-Mr. Neill
why they should be paying him if he was so disloyal to the province. That was before the war, and it was said that it was only a matter of opinion. He has now been transferred to a position in Ottawa in which he can give advice-that is what he is here for, to speak with authority. He is on the ground, and he is also in a position to have early knowledge of any action that might be taken against the Japanese and to drop a hint in the right place. Anything of that sort, just a hint in the right quarters, might make a great deal of difference in the carrying out of a policy.
Perhaps I shall be told that this is unfair, that this is a fine man, and that I should not make such statements. I agree that he is entitled to-his weird opinions; he was entitled to that before the war. But since the war, no -a thousand times no. He is too one-sided and biased to be kept in such a place.
During the last war there was a member of the royal family, Prince Henry of Battenberg, I think, who was married to Queen Victoria's daughter. He was an admiral of the fleet and his loyalty could not be questioned, but he voluntarily asked to be retired. It did not look well to see a man of German origin in command of the fleet, and so he asked to be retired. I submit that in this case a feeling of decency should have impelled this gentleman to whom I have been referring to ask to be relieved of his position, where he is open to suspicion. Scripture says that we should abstain from even the appearance of evil.
We who have taken the position that I am now taking have been called all sorts of names. We have been called agitators. It is said that we are willing to exploit the interests of Canada for our own political advantage; that we are rabble-rousers, Jap-baiters, and that we have a very dangerous influence-that was not said of me; it was said of a reputable alderman in Vancouver. I have heard that sort of thing, and hints of it even in this house, and certainly in the government press. You can get a man to write any letter you *want; you can get a white man to make a tool of himself for a Jap if you pay him enough. There was a man who wrote to the papers saying what fine people the Japs are.
I laid a trap for him and I discovered that he was a white man all right, but also a paid agent of a Japanese association, but he did not say that when he signed his name.
Yes, we are all bad because we want a white British Columbia and not a place like Hawaii! Fifty years from now, unless something is done to stop it, all west of the Rockies will be yellow. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we want but little; we simply want to be left alone, like New Zealand and Australia,
all white. I have no ill-will against the Japanese. Perhaps you may think I have been showing ill-will, but I assure you I have none towards the Japs. No Jap ever "did" me-I never gave him the chance. I wish to be fair to the Japanese, and I think that if we expatriated them, as we ought to do, they should be given full justice in regard to their property, because I am strongly in favour of a Japan controlled by the Japanese, just as I am in favour of a Canada controlled by Canadians. Let us continue to trade with them; let us do business with them across the ocean; but do not force into one nation two peoples separated by something that is wider than the ocean, two peoples who are different in race, in religion, in traditions and in their whole philosophy of life. This difference always has prevented assimilation and always will prevent it, between two nations so utterly divergent in every respect. The greatest path towards assimilation is marriage. Well, the Japs have been here fifty-eight years and there is no record of a single marriage, although there might be one. I asked a Japanese to produce the record of one marriage and he could not do so. We have heard of second generation Japanese bom here going to Japanese schools here to learn Japanese, and that has been regarded as a small matter. We went into their textbooks and had them translated and we found that they were very anti-British. Yet there were people who thought that was a small matter-only the sort of thing that irresponsible people like myself would talk about. But when the war came, it was thought wise to shut down the Jap schools. There were fifty-nine in British Columbia, and leaving out small areas where they could not run a school, the great bulk of those children must have attended some Japanese school.
I have one more word. When the time comes to talk peace, I suggest that the services rendered by Canada and by her Prime Minister should surely entitle both him and this dominion to be fully represented when the terms of peace are being settled, when the treaty comes to be made, and have their voice heard in no uncertain terms. I do suggest-perhaps it is too early to talk about it now, but it is well to get it started-that we should make an arrangement that when peace time comes, we expatriate all the Japanese left in Canada; do it on fair terms, buy them out, pay them liberally. It was done in the present war, I believe, between Russia and Germany; and after the last war it was done on a large scale, some 200,000 people, between the Greeks and the Turks,
1 think. If they could move 200,000, it is
The Address-Point of Order

much easier for us to move 25,000, and it is better to move them while their numbers are so small. Let us settle once and for all this canker in the life of Canada which prevents us from being a united white Canada. And that is what British Columbia wants.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I rise to a point of order. I believe we are discussing the amendment to the motion. I submit to you, sir, that on the basis of your ruling on the amendment to the amendment the amendment itself is clearly out of order.
Your Honour ruled that the subamendment sought to condemn the government on what amounted to a want of confidence motion for something it contemplated doing. The amendment states:
This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers, instead of giving to the country the leadership so essential at a time properly described in the speech from the throne as the greatest crisis in the world's history, on the contrary, have sought to evade their responsibility by holding a plebiscite.
My submission is that the government has not held a plebiscite, but that the speech from the throne contemplates the holding of a plebiscite, which is precisely in the terms of the amendment to the amendment that was ruled out of order. Therefore on precisely the same ground this amendment to the motion is out of order.


Georges Parent: I think the difference
is very apparent. The government has announced its determination to hold a plebiscite. The amendment that I ruled out of order referred' to a, contemplated future action of the government, which may or may not take .place. Therefore I cannot see any similarity between that proposed subamendment and the amendment which is now before the house.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Now that the proposed subamendment of the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) has been ruled out of order, and before the vote is taken on the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) I intend1 to move an amendment to the amendment of the leader of the opposition.
Canada in its entirety condemned conscription on March 26, 1940. Canadians of all origins repudiated this measure. There is no better demonstration thereof than the defeat of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen in York South on February 9. Personally I will not relieve the government from its solemn pledge and sacred commitments. Now the Prim'e Minister of our country, who heads the most powerful government which Canada has
[Mr. Neill.)
ever had, would withdraw before a clique of imperialists. Why this plebiscite, if not because the government wishes to be released from its pledges and commitments? It would be so easy for the government to respect the precise, clear and almost unanimous mandate which it received from the people of this country on March 26, 1940. Furthermore, thousands of Canadian voters approved the same mandate on February 9 last; they requested the government to respect its commitments to the people of Canada. I will not mention to-day the results of the by-elections of February 9, but I will speak again on that subject at the right moment.
The Canadian party has sown the seed of Canadian ideals. This seed has already sprouted in good soil. Having regard to the generous and sympathetic welcome with which the electorate greeted our doctrine, we are sure that our ideas and principles will make their way.
The amendment to the amendment which I shall move is not an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but an amendment to the amendment of the leader of the opposition. Lest hon. members should misunderstand the meaning of the amendment I shall move, let me give the following explanation.
I cannot support the leader of the opposition ; on the contrary I must disapprove of his amendment as firmly as I can, because sub-paragraph of paragraph 2 states that: -this, house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have not seen fit to recommend to parliament without delay additional measures designed to
(a) completely mobilize the wealth and material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man and woman power of the nation, to the end that the nation may wage total war in any theatre of war.
During all my life I have been opposed to conscription and mobilization for overseas service. It is not in this most decisive hour that I will fail in my duty. According to the very words of the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, "conscription for overseas service would be an error of such tremendous magnitude that it would split the country wide open."
Many of my colleagues have already voiced their disapproval of the plebiscite. They have spoken in this debate and asserted that they would vote against the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Because my colleagues are sincere and consistent and have asserted that they are beside me against conscription I beg them to help me defeat the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition requesting conscription and mobilization for overseas service.

The Address-Mr. Lacombe
This amendment to the amendment will also deal with the necessity of exempting from military training and compulsory service, farmers, farmers' sons, fishermen and fisheries employees, and all persons employed in war industries. Agriculture is our first line of defence, because it feeds our armies and our civilian population. As for employees of war industries, their work is essential to the carrying on of the war and to the defence of Canada. The great majority of munition workers already possess invaluable training and experience; to replace them would mean disorganizing and even ruining our production of aircraft, tanks, ships, guns, machine guns, shells, and so forth.
The government has not the right to commit the tremendous error of ruining or even lessening our agricultural production. Nor has it the right to harm the output of our munition factories. Many married farmers and their sons had to abandon their farms to join up in the training camps. Even more numerous were the aged and sick farmers who were compelled to sell their farms and herds because their sons were mobilized and called for training. Farm labour has become so scarce that we anticipate with great fear the imminent failure of agriculture in Canada.
During the year just gone by agricultural production has decreased by twenty-six per cent. This decrease is reaching such a point that our best informed agricultural economists are thunderstruck by the seriousness of this situation.
I shall deal further with the vital importance of maintaining, and even of increasing, production in our war factories. Many young men who had acquired a previous experience in this line had to leave their factories to take up military training. I know many tradesmen, skilled mechanics, plumbers, welders, electricians and graduates from our technical schools who were compelled to leave their work, so important to our war production, in order to respond to the colours. In many cases they were replaced by apprentices or completely unskilled workers.
One should not wonder, then, why our war factories have worked and are still working at a very slow rate. In order to redress this deplorable state of affairs an investigation should be conducted into the acts of the responsible parties.
According to the war aims of the allies, we are fighting first of all to maintain Christianity in the world, and then democracy, liberty, justice and right. Why is it that the Lord's day is violated more than ever in our war industries? Sunday is God's day. For thousands of years it has been respected
and observed by all Christian and civilized peoples. Do you believe, Mr. Speaker, that Christ, whose teachings are constant and eternal, will bless the success of our armies? Our Lord Jesus Christ decreed that Sunday must be observed as a day of rest and prayer. Those who violate His commandments must expect the worst catastrophes. Let the government stop everywhere, while there is still time, all work performed on Sundays, and God will bless the success of our armies.
Coming back to the necessity of maintaining and increasing our agricultural production,
I wish to direct the attention of the house to numerous difficulties which face the farmers and gardeners when they wish to obtain the labour required to operate their farms. It is evident that at the present time our farmers are living through the most difficult period they have experienced for many years. In many cases they are driven to bankruptcy as a consequence of their being exploited by the trusts controlling feeding stuffs, chemical fertilizers, and all by-products of wheat such as bran and shorts. At times when wheat was worth 38 cents a bushel the farmers have had to pay as much as $3.40 and $3.60 for one hundred pounds of wheat flour. Feeding stuffs which three or four years ago they could buy for $19.80 a ton are now sold to them for as high as $38 a ton by the powerful companies which derive their profits from the sacrifices, the labour, and the misery of farmers and workers.
These monopolies will kill the production of bacon, cheese and butter in this country. Fanners tell me they are getting rid of their dairy cattle, and would sacrifice their bacon hogs rather than lose money on them every day. Others have already abandoned their farms because they cannot get labour. Np farmer can face t'he actual agricultural situation without losing his savings and the capital which it took many years to build up. On top of all these vicissitudes he must bear daylight saving time. Anyone with the least knowledge of farm life would never impose daylight saving upon farmers. The government seems to think that the farmer does not experience enough difficulties yet in securing the required labour. Is there no expert on the department's staff who can tell the government that daylight saving time is very, detrimental to the agricultural Class? Is there no one who can show that harvesting cannot be done before the sun has dried up the dew which covers all fields at daybreak? Will the government ever be aware that the imposition of daylight saving time upon farmers deals a very hard blow to agriculture itself? Indeed,
The Address-Mr. Lacombe

it deprives production of thousands and thousands of most precious hours, the hours which follow sunrise.
I see these gentlemen protesting that the farmer will work more and longer hours in the evening. No, Mr. Speaker, this argument is false, and invented in their imaginations. One cannot work in the fields at such a late hour because the dew has already descended. Why not maintain standard time in ail rural municipalities? Daylight saving will save very little, if we look at the immense loss of time imposed upon agriculture.
A while ago I called to the attention of the government the evil doings of the trusts who exploit farmers and workers. During the months of October, November, and December last, the veTy companies I denounced a while ago bought from farmers potatoes at a price ranging from 40 to 50 cents a bag. These potatoes were stored away in huge quantities by financial sharks. The wartime prices and trade board set the maximum price for potatoes at S2 a bag. Once more t'he worker, the consumer and the farmer have been robbed. As for the government, it is still buying from Canada Packers, for army consumption, potatoes stored away by trusts who thus make profits of 250 per cent. The same story repeats itself. During the fall of 1040, for our military training camps the government bought butter from Canada Packers at prices as high as 36, 37 and 38 cents a pound. The same butter- that is, 60,000,000 pounds-was stored away by a gang of scoundrels who, during July, August and September, bought it from farmers at prices as low' as 21, 22 and 23 cents a pound. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I protested against it in this very chamber. I was given the official figures, and the government set the price of butter at 34 cents a pound. It was too late. The people and the government had been robbed and exploited by unbridled profiteering w'hich led democracy to the verge of the abyss.
Before concluding, I wish to point out to this house that the market gardener's cooperative association of the province of Quebec in the district of Montreal will be deprived of 6,000 to 8,000 experienced workers in 1942. Where are we heading for, if not for agricultural disaster? I had the same representations from the United Farmers. The Catholic farmers' union of Quebec also shares these views. We receive thousands of resolutions passed by county corporations and local municipalities requesting that farmers and farmers' sons be exempted1 from military training. If we do not grant the unanimous request of our agricultural classes, if we do
I Mr. Lacombe.]
not exempt from military service the employees of our war factories, we may justly fear great set-backs. Suppress the vital strength of our nation, its agriculture, its war factories, and you will see its first line of defence crumble; you will see the country fall into decay and ruin.
Consequently I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix):
That all the vrords after "this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers" in the amendment, be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) did not deem it proper to advise Your Excellency that the government should adhere to its commitments and the terms of its mandate against conscription for overseas service which it received from the people of Canada at the general elections held on March 26, 1940;
(b) that the farmers, farm employees, fishermen, fisheries employees and all persons engaged in industries connected with agriculture or with war industries, should be exempt from military service."


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why not add barbers and
bakers?


Georges Parent: The question is on the
amendment.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Before the vote is taken on the amendment I wish to say just a word or two. Amendments are sometimes peculiar things. We read part of them and we say we agree; we read another part of them and we say we disagree; and it is a case of deciding which part outweighs the other part, in order to know how to vote. That, Mr. Speaker, is the position in which we in this comer of the house find ourselves with respect to the amendment moved by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Hanson). There are some things in the amendment with which we agree-agree most heartily. I might suggest that paragraph (b), that the government have failed to "supply the imperative needs of agriculture, industry, and the fighting forces of the nation" is something with which we agree.
It is already recognized, of course, that we of this group represent constituencies in western Canada. For the most part our ridings are agricultural; and we agree that the government has failed, and miserably failed, to supply the needs of agriculture comparatively with the needs of other industries since the war began.
Before coming to Ottawa I took a trip through the eastern part of my constituency, and honestly 1 was ashamed that I lived in a country where the governmental administration of the nation was such as to bring upon the farmers of that constituency the embarrassment and suffering which it does. Men came to me almost crying, saying that they had met the government's request to reduce their wheat acreage and yet could not get their bonuses paid. I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) can rise in his place and say that perhaps something was wrong with this case or that case. I am not saying that there is anything particularly wrong with the fundamental principle underlying the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, but I do say that there is something miserably wrong with the administration of it. Men came to me almost crying, saying, "What am I to do? I have no money and the grocer will not let me have groceries on credit even though I am expecting a cheque any day from the government for my acreage reduction." What could I tell these people? And that is the position not only in my constituency, but in many others. Indecision after indecision has resulted from some important point with respect to the administration of that act. Farmers who should have been paid last fall are not yet paid, and we receive letters every day asking what is wrong and why these
The Address-Mr. Hansell

farmers cannot, get payment for their acreage bonus. That sort of thing should not go on in time of war when we desire our people to feel free to fight for a country that is worth fighting for. We are leaving in the minds of some of these people the thought that perhaps, after all, there is not very much to fight for. I do not like to think that: it should not be. I am perfectly satisfied that we have one of the greatest countries on God's earth. Then let us satisfy the needs of the people who belong to and are appealing to this nation.
The other paragraph reads that the government has failed to make mention of things with respect to preparation for the post-war period. I am not going to take time now to go into a discussion of what might happen in this matter, but I will say that not very much encouragement is offered to this country from the point of view of what will take place after this war is over, judging by what is happening to-day to the dependents of men who fought in the last war.
I have a letter which is only characteristic of many that we receive. It is characteristic of the underlying principle that the government has not been able to care for the veterans and their dependents who fought for this country to make it safe for democracy in the years from 1914 to 1918. I have a letter from a young lady whose mother is the widow of a man who fought for four years in the last war. Her dependent's allowance has now run out so that she is thrown on the rolls of public charity-a woman of 65. Listen to what this young woman has to say:
My father was a veteran of the last great war and served at the front for four steady years. His number was 435830.
We may as well put this on the eternal records of this house.
Upon his return, of course, he was honourably discharged. Well do I remember his homecoming and how shocked we were to see how greatly he had aged in those four years of absence from home. However, I am wandering from my point, upon obtaining the age of sixty he became entitled to a veteran's allowance of $40 per month, but as usual he was squeezed down to the magnificent sum of $25 per month upon which he and my mother were expected to live, or, should I say, expected to exist. His strength failed rapidly the latter part of his life; he suffered terribly from neuritis and bladder trouble, and finally in January he was told an operation would be necessary in order that he might live. In short, he had the operation and died at the age of sixty-three, leaving my mother, who is the same age, shocked, lonely and heart-broken, knowing full well those years spent in damp trenches had at last taken their toll.
What happened? The poor widow had nothing. She applied to the administration for assistance. What do they do? They round

out the year by continuing to pay her $25 a month, and when the year ends she gets a notice that this is the final payment. I took this matter up with the department. Of course, we have our acts that govern the administration of these departments. I took it up with the department and got it in writing. I received a letter from them saying that they could no nothing for this woman. I want to read a part of the letter. This is from the war veterans' allowance board:
I regret to inform you that there is absolutely nothing that can be done, under the terms of the War Veterans' Allowance Act, for . . .
I am sorry that I cannot send you a more hopeful communication.
That is a very bright spot, is it not, in the administration of this country's affairs when we are fighting a war and asking young men to go to the front? I have two boys in the air force. What am I to think if I know that should they marry and come back and die, their widows will be turned over to public charity and be obliged to go and bow down in obeisance to the city fathers in order to get a hand-out? Is that the way we are going to treat them?
It is all very well for the department to say, "We regret to inform you that absolutely nothing can be done under the terms of the act." They attempt to hide behind some statute. Well, I am a preacher, but I would say, "damn the statute." Let us scrap the statute and put another one in its place in order to give something of encouragement to the aged mothers who have raised their families, struggled hard while their husbands were spending four years in damp trenches in the last war. The government by reason of the War Measures Act can contravene existing statutes; they can scrap them; they can change them while we are sitting right here. But when it comes to changing them in order to get a few dollars to the needy wives of our veterans, oh, no, no, they cannot do that! They then use the War Veterans' Allowance Act to hide behind.
I know they may say, "It will cost so much money." I know we have a war on and it takes money to fight a war. But before the war is over, we shall perhaps be raising and spending three or four billion dollars a year to blow into kingdom come, yet we cannot afford a few dollars to help the destitute widows of the soldiers who fought for this country.
With that part of the Conservative amendment this group heartily agrees. We are, however, going to vote against that amendment. We do so by reason of another part of it. I do not wish this statement to be interpreted that we are therefore voting on

The Address-Mr. Hoblitzell
the side of the government; we are voting against the main motion too. Let me make this statement on behalf of this group. This group with which I am associated favours the general principle of plebiscites and referenda designed to determine the direct will of the people. We agree with that part of the Conservative amendment which asserts that by holding this plebiscite in the manner in which it is to be held the government is evading its responsibility. We favour also paragraphs (b) and (c) of the amendment, which state that the government has failed to supply the needs of agriculture and has neglected to make mention of post-war reconstruction. We shall oppose the amendment on the ground that we have no confidence in the Conservative party's stand on the mobilization of our wealth and material resources as suggested by their amendment. Nowhere in their speeches or their recommendations have they indicated1 that their idea of conscription of wealth and resources means the same as the conscription of finance as advocated by this group.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What do you mean by conscription of finance?


Ernest George Hansell: I suggest that the hon. member ask his own leader, who himself says he wants to mobilize wealth.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You said you did not agree with that; now what do you mean by it yourself?


Ernest George Hansell: Those who proposed this amendment have never asserted that there is any need for change in the basic principles now operative in the present privately controlled financial system.


Mr. F. G. HOBLITZELL (Eglinton):: I am going to vote for the amendment to the motion, which implies endorsation of the plebiscite resolution, because I believe in the principle of universal compulsory selective service. If the amendment is defeated so that we cannot have immediate universal compulsory selective service, then I feel that the only course open to me is to vote for the main motion endorsing the plebiscite proposal to free the government from any election pledge given against conscription and thus allow it to bring in compulsory selective service if it will do so.
In pursuance of this reasoning I shall use what influence I have to induce the electors to vote "yes" on the plebiscite. If the plebiscite is carried, I shall then urge the government to introduce universal compulsory selective service immediately.
I would prefer the immediate release of [DOT]the government from its anti-conscription
commitments by a vote of this house, but since that does not appear to be feasible, I	
shall support the plebiscite on the principle	
that half a loaf is	better than no bread.


Mr. PERLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PURDY:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I was paired with the-hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. MacKenzie). Had I voted I would have voted for the
amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Georges Parent: There is no seconder.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that, with the consent of' the house, I would propose that we would not sit to-night if we conclude the debate at the present time. I would move the formal motions for the committees of ways and means and supply.


Georges Parent: The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the house-to adopt the motion? I declare the motion, carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Georges Parent: On division.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Georges Parent: Those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Georges Parent: Those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Georges Parent: Call in the members.


Ernest Edward Perley: I was paired with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: I was paired with the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. MacKenzie). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the said address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this house will, on Friday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['It is the regular procedure immediately following the adoption of the address.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this house will, on Friday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
Standing Committees


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this sub- MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS
ject to notice, or is it the regular motion?	Messieurs


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the regular procedure immediately following the adoption of the address.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Abbott
Anderson
Bertrand (Laurier)
Diefenbaker
Douglas (Weyburn)
Factor
Fair
Fleming
Gershaw '
Gibson
Gladstone
Gray
Gregory
Kirk
Lalonde
Leger
Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre) MacNicol McCuaig
McDonald (Pontiac)
Mills
Mutch
O'Brien
Pinard
Pouliot
Power
Roy
Tremblay
Weir.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Bence
Bertrand (Laurier)
Bertrand (Terrebonne)
Black (Cumberland)
Bourget
Breithaupt
Chevrier
Corman
Cote
Crerar
Douglas (Queens)
Dupuis
Emmersom
Eudes
Factor
Farquhar
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Ful ford Gingues Golding Gregory
Hanson (Skeena)
Harris (Danforth)
Hatfield
Healy
Howden
Howe
Isnor
J ackmao
Jaques
Jean

Kirk
LaCroix (Quebec-
Montmorency)
Little
Lizotte
Lockhart
Maclnnis
MacKinnon
(Kootenay East) McCulloch Mclvor McKinnon
(Kenora-Rainy River) McNiven (Regina City) Maybank Mills Mullins Nicholson Nielsen (Mrs.)
Nixon
O'Brien
O'Neill
Picard
Pouliot
Roebuck
Ross (Calgary East) Ross (Souris)
Shaw
Sissons
Turner
White
Whitman.
Bonnier
Boucher
Casselman (Mrs.)
(Edmonton East) Castleden Chambers Cleaver Cloutier Cotd d'Anjou Donnelly Douglas (Queens) Dubois Durocher Factor
Fournier (Hull)
Gershaw
Gibson
GiBis
Gingues
Gladstone
Graham
Hansel!
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Hazen
Healy
Hlynka
Hoblitzell
Howden
Jutras
Laoombe
LaCroix (Quebec-Montmorency) Lapointe (Lotbiniere) Lockhart
Macdonald (Halifax) Macdonald
(Brantford City) MacKenzie (Lambton-Kent)
McGregor
Mcllraiith
Matthews
Mayhew
Parent
Poirier
Ross (St. Paul's)
Roy
Sen®
Stokes
Telford
Tomlinson
Veniot
Wood.
BANKING AND COMMERCE Messieurs
Bercovitch
Black (Cumberland)
Blackmore
Blair
Breithaupt
Claxton
Cleaver
Coldwell
Donnelly
Dubuc
Eudes
Fontaine
Fournier (Hull)
Fraser
(Northumberland) Fraser (Peterborough
West)
Graham
Gray
Hanson
(York-Sunbury) Harris (Danforth) Hazen Hill
Jackman
Jaques
Jean
Kinley
Lacroix (Beauce) Laflamme
Lapointe (Lotbini&re) Macdonald (Halifax) Macdonald
(Brantford City) Macmillan McCann MeGeer Mcllraith McNevin
(Victoria, Ont.) Marier Martin Maybank Mayhew Moore Perley Picard Raymond Ross (St. Paul's)
Ross (Calgary East)
Slaght
Thorson
Tucker
Ward
Woodsworth.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Bertrand (Prescott)
Brunelle
Cardiff
Denis
Douglas (Weyburn)
Edwards
Golding
Graydon
Jaques
MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria)
Marier
Marshall
McGibbon
McLarty
McLean (SimcoeEast)
O'Neill
Rennie
Ross (Moose Jaw)
Stokes
Sylvestre.

Standing Committees


[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Messieurs
Abbott
Anderson
Authier
Bereovitch
Black (Yukon)
Blanchette
Boucher
Bourget
Brooks
Casselman (Mrs.)
(Edmonton East) Church Clark Cote
Cruickshank
Desmond
Ferland
Fleming
Fontaine
Fournier (Hull)
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
(Northumberl and) Fulford Gladstone Golding
Grant
Graydon
Henderson
Homuth
Isnor
Johnston (Bow River)
Leader
Maclnnis
McCubbin
McDonald (Pontiac)
McGeer
Mclvor
Marshall
Mullins
Mulock
Purdy
Rickard
Roebuck
Ross (Hamilton East)
Slaght
Thorson
Tremblay
Tripp
Veniot
Winkler
Wright.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Authier Aylesworth Bertrand (Prescott) Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon)
Blair
Cardiff
Clark
Cloutier
Cruickshank
Davidson
Dechene
Desmond
Diefenbaker
Donnelly
Douglas (Weyburn)
Douglas (Queens)
Evans
Fair
Ferron
Fontaine
Furniss
Gardiner
Golding
Halle
Hatfield
Henderson
Lafontaine
Lalonde
Lapointe (Lotbinidre)
Leader
Leclerc
Leger
Lizotte
MacDiarmid
MacKenzie
(Lambton-Kent) McCuaig McCubbin McGarry McNevin
(Victoria, Ont.) Matthews Mullins Nielsen (Mrs.)
Perley
Poirier
Quelch
Rennie
Rheaume
Rickard
Ross (Souris)
Ross (Middlesex East)
Ross (Moose Jaw)
Rowe
Senn
Soper
Sylvestre
Turgeon
Tustin
Ward
Weir
Wright.
[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Blanchette
Claxton
Esling
Hlynka
Jut raa
Pinard
Pouliot
Roes (Middlesex East) Ross (Moose Jaw) Rowe Shaw
Sincl air.
Bradette
Brooks
Brunette
Crete
Dechene
Farquhair
Ferron
Gauthier
Gillie
Green
Hanson (Skeena)
Hazen
Hill
Kimfey
Kuhl
Lafontaine
Lapointe (Matapedia-Matane)
Leduc
Macdonald
(Kingston City) Maclnnis
MacKenzie (Neepawa) Macmillan
McLean (SimcoeEaet)
Neill
Pobtier
Reid
Roy
Ryan
Stirling
Telford
Tomlinson
Tripp
Tustin
Veniot
Warren.
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT (Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
Adamson Aylesworth Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon)
Bruce
Cardiff
Casselman (Grenville-Dundas)
Castleden
Emmerson
Eudes
Farquhar
Fontaine
Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Gershaw Goulet Graham Green Henderson Howden Hurtubise J aques Jean
Lizotte
Macdonald (Halifax) MacKenzie (Neepawa) MacKenzie
(Lambton-Kent) * Macmillan Marier Martin M ayhew Moore Poirier Pouliot Purdy Raymond Reid Rickard
Ross (St. Paul's)
Shaw
Telford
Thauvette
W arren
Winkler
Wood
Woodsworth.
INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Messieurs
Abbott
Bliackmore
Bruce
Church
Cote
Dubuc
Eudes
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Goulet
Hanson (Skeena)
Homuth
Jean.
Laflamme La fontadne Leger Maclnnis
MacKenzie (Neepawa)
Macmillan
MacNicol
McCann
McGarry
McNiven (Regina City)
Massey
Mutch
Neill
Nixon
Pettier
Roebuck
Ros® (Calgary East)
Ross (Hamilton East)
Sanderson
Slaght
Stirling
Taylor
Turgeon.
Reading of Speeches
[Stage Direction]
PRINTING	Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre)
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) moved that the report be concurred in. Messieurs	Motion agreed to.
Bereoviteh
Bertrand
(Terrebonne)
Blanchette
Bourget
Casselman
(Grenville-Dundas) Castleden Chambers Chevrier Claxton Corman Denis Dubois Dupuis Duroeher Edwards Emmerson Esling Evans Eerland Fleming
Fraser (Peterborough West)
Furniss
Goulet
Grant
Green
Hall£
Healy
Hlynka
Hoblitzell
Hurtubise
Kuhl
Leader
MacDiarmid
MacKinnon
(Kootenay East) MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria) McGregor McNevin
(Victoria, Ont.)
Mills
Moore
Mulock
Nicholson
Purdy
Rheaume
Ross (St. Paul's)
Sinclair
Sissons
Soper
Tucker
Tustin
Weir
White
Whitman
Winkler
Wood.
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messieurs
Adamson
Authier
Bence
Black (Yukon)
Bradebbe
Crenar
d'Anjou
Edwards
Esling
Evans
Furniss
Grant
Hansel!
Huntubiee
Johnston (Bow River) Lacroix (Beauce) Lafontaiine Leduc
Little
MacNieol
McCann
McCulloch
McDonald (Pontiac)
McKinnon
(Kenora-Rainy River) Nielsen (Mrs.)
Parent
Sanderson
Sinclair
Sylvestre
Tremblay
Tripp
Turner
Ward
Warren
White.

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
Black (Yukon)	Maclnnis
Dupuis	McGregor
Edwards	Mclvor
Farquhar	Mayhew
Furniss	Pinard
Goulet	Purdy
Howden	Rheaume
Jaques	Thauvette
Laflamme	Tucker
Lafontaine	Tustin.
Macdonald	
(Brantford City)

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 6.30 pun.
Friday, February 20, 1942