1944-05-05

Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I wish to table an order in council relating to certain changes that are being made in the present arrangements with the United States government and Imperial Oil Limited with respect to oil development in the Northwest Territories, and in doing so to give the house a somewhat lengthy statement of the whole mattet as it stands at the present time.
In tabling a copy of an order in council that has been passed relating to the development of the oil resources in the Northwest and Yukon Territories, I wish to make for the government the following explanatory statement. The members of the house will recall the exchanges of notes between Canada and the United States in reference to the Canol project. They were the following:
1.	Exchange of notes June 27-29, 1942.
2.	Exchange of notes August 14-15, 1942.
3.	Exchange of notes December 28, 1942-January 13, 1943.
4.	Exchange of notes January 18, February 17, March 13, 1943.
May I point out that the Canol proposals were first considered early in the year 1942. Less than six months before, the United States fleet had suffered heavy losses at Pearl Harbor; the disastrous losses of Hong Kong and

Singapore followed, and the menace of Japanese submarines appeared on the west coast of North America. Shipping losses were heavy and tankers scarce. Japanese forces were in the Aleutians. The prospect of intensified submarine warfare and the possibility that it would be concentrated in an attack against coastal tanker shipments became a vital and primary consideration. In the circumstances the Canadian government readily acquiesced in the proposals of the United States government.
Under the first and second exchanges of notes approval was given to the United States government to:
(a)	enter into contracts with a Canadian company to be selected by it, to drill wells on the leases and permits the company held or might later acquire, in order that the necessary supply of oil might be found;
(b)	construct a pipeline from Norman Wells to Whitehorse in the Yukon, capable of carrying 3,000 barrels of oil daily;
(c)	erect refinery facilities at Whitehorse:
(d)	erect oil storage at Prince Rupert and construct a pipeline from Skagway to Whitehorse.
Under the third and fourth exchanges of notes approval was given to the United States to carry out an extended exploratory and drilling programme throughout the Northwest Territories and Yukon for the purpose of endeavouring to find additional sourdes of oil capable of producing from 15,000 to 20,000 barrels daily to supplement the supply from Norman Wells.
I have only briefly summarized the exchanges of notes as they are available to any member who may wish to read them.
The members of the house are familiar with the oil development that had taken place at Fort Norman. A number of petroleum locations were staked in 1914 some fifty miles below Fort Norman on the Mackenzie river and leases of certain of them were acquired by the Northwest company, a subsidiary of the Imperial Oil Limited. During the period between 1920 and 1925 that company drilled wells on its leaseholds and oil was discovered in commercial quantities. Owing to the distance from markets these wells were capped and remained closed until 1932 when they were opened to meet the demand for fuel oil and gasoline created by the mining of radium-bearing ores at Great Bear lake. An increase in consumption also arose from the opening of the Yellowknife mining field and as a result the company drilled further wells and installed additional refinery equipment.

Canol Project-Oil Resources
At the beginning of the year 1942, five wells had been drilled and a refinery capable of processing S00 barrels of oil a day had been installed. By that time the [DOT] company had expended approximately $1,500,000. The average production from 1932 to 1942 was about 20,000 barrels a year, or approximately 340 barrels a day during the summer season.
Following the understandings reached by the two governments, the United States War Department entered into contracts with Imperial Oil Limited. These contracts required the company to deliver 3,000 barrels of oil daily at stated prices, the United States government financing under certain conditions the costs of developing the additional deliveries of oil.
To facilitate the carrying out of the terms of the contracts, an area within a radius of fifty miles surrounding Norman wells was reserved and new regulations for the disposal under permit of petroleum and natural gas rights were established to, apply to the reserved area. Subsequently, for the purpose of facilitating the search for the additional supplies of oil, the scope of the new regulations was extended to cover all of the Yukon Territory and that portion of the mainland of the Mackenzie district, Northwest Territories, lying west of a line seventy-five miles east of and paralleling the Mackenzie river from its mouth to Fort Providence and thence south to the northern boundary of Alberta. In view of the special nature of the development that was contemplated under the new regulations, provision was made that one-half of any location upon which oil was discovered, and any improvements thereon, would remain in or become the property of the crown.
In order to carry out its extended program of drilling and search for additional supplies of oil. Imperial Oil Limited acquired under these special regulations permits covering in all about 140,000 acres in the vicinity of the original discovery wells. An intensive drilling programme was carried out in the area immediately adjacent to the producing wells and as a result a proven field of oil has been delimited, comprising approximately 4,500 acres, estimated to contain from 30 to 60 million barrels of oil. The opinions of geologists differ as to the amount of the recoverable oil. The actual size of the pool will only be determined as further wells are drilled and it is found how much of the oil lying under the Mackenzie river can be recovered. Since the commencement of the Canol project, 40 wells have been drilled and of these 33 are producing oil. The present daily output of the field is about 3,900 barrels, which will be increased as additional wells are drilled.
100-167J
Approximately one-third of the proven field is included in the old leases held by the company and two-thirds in the permits acquired under the special regulations, in which the crown has a one-half interest. Considerable exploratory work was carried out on the permit area outside the proven field. Some drilling was done on one likely structure but no oil was found.
While the drilling programme and the search for oil was going on, the United States War Department proceeded with the construction of the pipelines from Norman and Skagway to Whitehorse and also the supplementary pipelines and, as well, erected the refinery at Whitehorse and the storage facilities at Prince Rupert. During last summer an extensive geological exploratory programme was also carried on around the Norman wells and elsewhere in the Northwest Territories. The United States War Department has reported that $134,000,000 has been spent on these projects.
The above is a brief summary of the situation as it existed a few months ago when the United States government informed us that it desired to modify the original plan it had in mind for the finding and development of large sources of oil in northwestern Canada. Representations were made that because of the change in the military and strategic picture in the north Pacific-in fact in the whole eastern Pacific-the project from a military point of view had become of less importance. The pipeline from Norman Wells to Whitehorse had only a daily capacity of from three to four thousand barrels. It was suggested there were now no military considerations which would necessitate increasing its capacity. It was further suggested that there was no justification for the United States government continuing the exploratory and drilling programme, other than the drilling necessary to maintain the supply of oil for the existing pipeline. The proposal involved the withdrawal of the United States from the exploratory programme and a renegotiation of the contracts with the Imperial Oil Limited. The United States government considered that in view of the very large expenditures that had been made, it should be entitled to obtain from the company an option to purchase after the war at a fixed price a substantial amount of oil from the proven field and from new fields to be found by the company.
The company was prepared to renegotiate the contracts and to grant the option, but first wished to reach an understanding with the Canadian government as to the method by which the respective shares of each in the proven field and the area under permit would
Canol Project-Oil Resources

be developed and, as well, to ascertain the terms of the regulations to be established for the development of the oil resources of the rest of the Northwest Territories and Yukon.
It has already been pointed out that the present pipeline has a capacity of from three to four thousand barrels daily or, in other words, not more than one million barrels a year can be transported to market. It is obvious that a much larger pipeline would be required to make a commercial operation feasible. In view of the difficult country through which it passes, the costs of operation and maintenance will undoubtedly be very high. For the same reason the cost of constructing a larger pipeline will be great. It has been estimated that it would cost at least 860,000,000 to construct a pipeline of the size required to permit commercial operation. It is also estimated that a reserve of not less than 300,000,000 barrels would have to be found to warrant such a large expenditure.
It therefore became necessary for the government to consider what regulations should be established for the exploration and development- of the oil resources of this hitherto little developed part of Canada. There are approximately 100,000,000 acres of land warranting exploration for oil. May I remind the members of th-e house that Fort Norman is near the arctic circle, more than 1,100 miles by air and nearly 1,500 miles by land and water north of Edmonton. The closest outlet for oil is across the mountains to the Pacific, 700 miles away. Even when it reaches the coast it will have to be transported by tanker as far south as southern British Columbia before it reaches any substantial market and then it will come into competition with the oils of southern California. Because of the remoteness of the region from markets, the climatic conditions, and the difficulties of transportation, very much heavier expenditures will have to be incurred in exploring for and developing new fields than in the more settled parts of Canada. Regulations should therefore be established which will encourage exploration and development on a sound economic basis. Canada is dependent upon the outside world for more than 85 per cent of her requirements of oil. It is therefore important that new sources should be discovered. To the extent that the oil" of the Northwest Territories can meet the requirements along the Pacific coast, so it will assist in easing our dependence on supplies from the United States.
The order in council which has been tabled sets out briefly the arrangement proposed to be made with the Imperial Oil Limited in regard to the proven field and the rest of the area now under permit. It also briefly
' V r. Crerar. J
summarizes the conditions to be imposed in the new regulations which will be passed immediately for the future development of the oil resources in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. '
The agreement with the company will fix the share of the dominion in the proven field at one-third. The field shall be developed by the company as a unit operation, the company to furnish all the funds necessary therefor and the government to pay its one-third share of the actual direct cost of producing the oil, plus a management fee of 10 per cent. In addition to receiving a one-third idiare of the oil, the government is entitled to a royalty of 10 per cent on the one-third share included in the old leases. For accounting purposes it was decided to make the royalty applicable to the company's two-thirds share and the rate therefor was fixed at 5 per cent.
The government also has agreed that the company may give an option to the United States government to purchase for its own use but not for resale at cost plus 20 cents a barrel, an amount up to one-half of the oil recovered from the proven area, not exceeding 30,000,000 barrels, and that, in making up this one-half, the company may draw upon the government's share to the extent of one-third. The option is to be subject to the prior and preferred supplying of all the local requirements for oil and oil products. It should be mentioned that under the option the United States government will be required to take its oil currently as the field is produced, at the rate of 20 per cent of the total amount currently produced from the proven area for export.
The option is also subject to the condition that if the United States government does not desire to take its share currently, then the company shall be entitled to sell such oil on its own-account, in which case the United States government would be entitled to any difference between the cost of production, plus 20 cents per barrel, and the average sale price received by the company for oil sold by it during the period in question.
In respect to the balance of the permit area, it is proposed that the company shall be entitled to exchange the permits now held for a new exploratory permit to be issued under the proposed new regulations. Such permit shall be subject to the terms and conditions thereof, except that in addition to paying the royalties to be provided for therein, the company will pay to the government 10 per cent of the net profit derived by it from any operation carried on within.

Canol Project-Oil Resources
that area, the profit to be computed as part of the royalty before the payment of income' tax.
The government has also agreed that the company may include in the option to the United States government the -right to purchase 10 per cent of any oil that may be found in the remainder of the permit area or in any other areas that may be taken up by the company under the new regulations, until a total of 60,000,000 barrels is reached, including that to be obtained from the proven field. The same conditions as stated above will apply to the United States government taking the oil at the rate of 20 per cent of the total amount currently produced. The total option, therefore, is limited in time; that is, it will expire approximately twenty years after a commercial pipeline has been constructed.
In respect to the new regulations to be established, the order in council sets out briefly some of the more important conditions that will be imposed. It is to the general advantage of Canada that an active program of exploration and search for oil should be carried out in order that new sources may be found and developed. The regulations will make available to all companies and individuals the opportunity of exploring and developing these resources.
In drafting the regulations it was necessary to keep in mind the remoteness of the country and the difficulties of operation. They must be sufficiently attractive to encourage exploration and development but at the same time the interest of the crown must be protected. Provision is being made for exploration permits of substantial size, provided a real effort is carried out to search for oil and to develop it when found. Very large expenditures will have to be made before a sufficient quantity of oil is found to warrant the building of a commercial pipeline to the nearest market. It may be many years before there will be any return on the capital invested. Further, there is no definite assurance that the required reserve of oil for the larger pipeline will ever be found. The rate of royalty, therefore, is being fixed on a somewhat smaller scale during the initial period of the development, the rate for the first five years being 7^ per cent for the second five years 10 per cent, and thereafter 12| per cent.
The regulations will also provide for development being carried on in accordance with the best conservation practices. In addition, provision is being made to control the prices to be charged for petroleum and petroleum products sold for use in the territories.
The right is given to any lessee to construct and operate pipeline to the nearest market and for the purposes thereof a free right of way will be granted over crown lands. All pipelines shall be operated as common carriers under such, regulations as the governor in council may impose.
Finally, the government will reserve the right to take possession at any time of all or any part of the areas held under permit or lease, together with the improvements, buildings and equipment thereon, including any pipelines that may be constructed, compensation being paid to the owner. Failing an agreement as 'to the amount of compensation it will be fixed by the exchequer court.
In conclusion may I say that now the urgency for finding new supplies of oil in the northwest for immediate military purposes has diminished, there are reasons why we should facilitate the withdrawal of the United States from those activities which were commenced when the urgency was critical. We are fully compensating the United States for the expenditures on the airfields constructed in the northwest which were made use of in connection with the Canol project. Upon the completion of the arrangements I have just outlined the participation of the United States in the exploratory and drilling programme, except in the proven field, will be terminated. The United States will still be interested, with the company, in maintaining the necessary supply of oil from the proven field for the existing pipeline and, as well, will operate and maintain the pipelines, refinery and storage facilities. All these operations will probably continue until the end of the war, when they will be dealt with in accordance with the conditions set out in the exchanges of notes.
I would like to add one further word. The government appreciates its responsibilities in doing everything possible to augment the supplies of petroleum on the north American continent. A country such as Canada which imports 85 per cent of its oil must energetically carry on the search for new sources of supply. I have confidence in the prospects of finding additional large fields in the northwestern part of Canada. While it is unfortunate the field developed at Fort Norman is too far away at present to supply the needs of central Canada and particularly the needs of the prairie provinces, there is reason to expect that favourable structures may also be found in the vicinity of Great Slave lake, close enough to justify the construction of a pipeline to the south. So far as this government is concerned, we propose to assist and facilitate the development of these resources in every way possible.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Under what authority
was this order in council passed? Was it passed under the authority of the War
Private Bills

Measures Act?-because I think it is of sufficient importance to have been the subject of ratification by statute in this house, when such a tremendous asset is being given away, and largely to one very large corporation. I realize the necessity of making an agreement with the United States government, but I object to anything of this sort being done by order in council when the house is sitting.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I say in reply that
my hon. friend does not state the facts correctly-although it may make a good impression in the country-when he says we are giving away these large resources.


Major James William Coldwell: That is exactly what
you are doing.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; we are providing for
the development of the resources, and providing for it under conditions which we think adequately protect the public interest.


Major James William Coldwell: But the house should
decide that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The government has power to do it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Oh, yes.



WAR LABOUR BOARD


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I lay on the table
a copy of P.C. 3277, passed on May 4, 1944. This is an order which gives the National War Labour Board authority to approve adjustments of wages paid to persons in Canada engaged in international railway services.



STANDING ORDERS


Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth) moved:: That the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Tuesday, May 2, 1944, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Ottawa West) moved the first reading of bill No. 92, to incorporate Wesleyan Methodist Church of America in Canada.
Mr. GRAYDON:: I should like to ask the hon. member who is introducing this bill to

explain it. Apparently it relates to church affairs and perhaps the house should have some explanation.


Mr. McILRAITH:: Mr. Speaker, this bill
provides for the incorporation of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America in Canada. The church has been in existence in Canada since the latter part of the last century, and has some fifteen branches in Ontario and three or four in Quebec. In matters of organization, discipline and doctrine they are affiliated with and come under the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America conference. I understand that this church was not one of those that came under church union. I do not know that there is much I can usefully add.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PATENT APPLICATION OF CLAUDE H. PETERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Ottawa West) moved the first reading of bill No. 94, respecting a certain patent application of Claude H. Peters.
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the hon. member to explain the purpose of this bill?


George James McIlraith: The purpose of the bill is to relieve the applicant, Claude H. Peters, from the prejudice caused to him by the failure of the registered Canadian patent attorneys through w'hom he filed his application to carry out their duties in connection with the application. In April, 1939, Mr. Peters' United States attorneys sent to the Ottawa office of a firm of Canadian patent attorneys, duly registered as fit to practice before the patent office, all the papers and a cheque for the fees required to enable the filing of an application for a Canadian patent. The attorneys in question acknowdedged the papers and cashed the cheque, but instead of filing the application at once, as they should properly have done, they withheld filing until nine months later.
The Canadian application corresponded to a United States application filed in January, 1938. The patent on this application was issued in May, 1939, and under section 26(2) of the Patent Act, 1935, barred the grant of a patent on any subsequently filed Canadian application. In December, 1940, the patent office rejected the Canadian application on the ground of the previous issue of the corresponding United States patent. The Canadian patent attorneys in question neither reported this rejection to Mr. Peters nor to his United States patent attorneys, nor did they make any answer to it within the statutory period provided by the Canadian act. Mr. Peters' application accordingly became abandoned in June, 1941.

Shell Filling Plants
If the Canadian patent attorneys in question had fulfilled their duties towards Mr. Peters and had filed the application, neither of the present objections to the issue of a patent, namely, late filing and abandonment, would have existed. The bill goes no further than is necessary to overcome these two objections. It provides that the application shall be deemed to have been filed on the day before the issue of the corresponding United States patent and to have been duly prosecuted within the statutory time limits. It directs the commissioner to consider and act on the application accordingly. If, as a result of such consideration, the commissioner finds other objections to the grant of a patent on the application, the bill does not affect his authority in this connection. I might add that the firm of patent attorneys concerned were subsequently stricken from the list of registered Canadian patent attorneys.


Gordon Graydon: On these grounds?


George James McIlraith: Yes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.	.



THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN AUGUSTANA SYNOD OF NORTH AMERICA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) moved the first reading of bill No. 95, to incorporate the executive board of the Canada conference of the Evangelical Lutheran Augustana Synod of North America.
Gordon Graydon: I know that my hon.
friends wants to explain this bill, and he should have an opportunity to do so.


Mr. MAYBANK:: I have no desire to rise to explain this bill, because there is very little explanation to be given. The bill is to provide for the granting of a charter to a church organization which needs such a charter in order to carry on its evangelical work in the best manner possible. This bill has had numerous counterparts in days not so far past. Every once in a while a bill similar to this is presented to the house to provide for a charter for some religious organization to permit the carrying on of its work. That is all there is to it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 93, to change the name of The Discount & Loan Corporation of Canada to Personal Finance Company of Canada.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of William Cowie. -Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Nita Marjorie Hammerich Ward.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Margaret Kirsen Brown MacRae.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Margaretha Cronauer.

Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Henry Rattigan. -Mr. Fulford.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon, J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance): Some questions were asked me a few days ago about the extension of the housing conversion plan to the city of Winnipeg. I may say that an order in council has now been passed adding Winnipeg to the list of cities eligible for the application of this plan.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply a question with regard to a press reference to the fact that the Cherrier munitions plant, heretofore operated under the management of Canadian Car Munitions Limited, is about to be turned over for management to Defence Industries Limited. Is the minister in position to explain the reason for this change?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The change is simply a redistribution of management. The Canadian Car and Foundry company are operating a number of munitions plants. Recently they have been called upon to open shell capacity that has been closed and they have also suffered the loss of their general manager by death. Canadian Car Munitions asked to be relieved of the operation of this particular plant. The other shell filling plant is operated by Defence Industries Limited and after some pressure Defence Industries Limited agreed to extend its responsibilities to the operation of the Cherrier plant. The advantage of the new arrangement of having all shell filling plants under one management is that the allocation of work to the plants will be simplified.
War Appropriation-Labour



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 4, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr, Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Vocational training for discharged members of Canada's armed forces, including undischarged commitments of previous years, $780,000.
Mr. MacNICOL:: In regard to the latter part of this item, "including undischarged commitments of previous years", may I ask why these commitments of previous years were undischarged?


Humphrey Mitchell: The undischarged commitments amount to $30,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then this item of $780,000 consists of one item for $750,000, and an item of $30,000 for undischarged commitments of previous years-is that it?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. Yesterday the hon. member for Qu'Appelle asked a question as to assistance being given to shoemakers taking a course in his province. While this matter comes under the Department of Pensions and National Health, we thought it would be just as well to give an answer to the question to-day. Such assistance is available under section 7 of our post-discharge order, which authorizes the minister to pay a weekly maintenance grant to veterans engaging in an enterprise of their own and awaiting returns from it. No provision exists at the moment for the advancement of capital to enable them to set themselves up in business, but this question is at present under consideration by a subcommittee of a general advisory committee. The member for Qu'Appelle wanted to know if any promises had been made to the particular soldiers to whom he referred last evening as to giving them assistance in setting themselves up in business.
The hon. member for Battle River asked what percentage of the returned soldiers who have taken vocational training have found employment. The answer is that there is not the slightest difficulty in finding employment for those who have been trained. The training is objective in character and directed towards specific employment opportunities.
The hon. member for Vancouver South asked about vocational training in the hospitals. Vocational training in the full sense of the term is not and never has been given in
[Mr Howe.]
active treatment hospitals. . Occupational therapy, including handicrafts, is provided by the department for the restoration of lost or impaired functions. When the men reach the stage where they are physically capable of undertaking a course in vocational training, they will be ready for discharge to convalescent or reconditioning centres, where adequate provision is being made for training courses. In the meantime they can learn the principles of the trade in which they are interested through the medium either of correspondence courses available through this department or Canadian Legion textbooks. I stated that 3,000 have availed themselves of training; it should be 3,001.
The hon. member for Humboldt asked a question with reference to assistance to students, and with the permission of the committee I would ask to have this table printed in Hansard.


The CHAIRMAN:: With the unanimous consent of the committee.
(The table appears on following page.)


Mr. PERLEY:: The minister has replied
[DOT]to one of the questions I asked last night with reference to assistance to those taking a particular course. I have a letter here from one of the vocational training superintendents in Ottawa, which states that depending on the length of service it may be possible to give assistance to trainees who start up their own business, under benefit No. 3. I have not the pamphlet under my hand from which I quoted last night, but I assume that under that benefit they would be eligible for the assistance in setting themselves up in business which they certainly understood they were going to get.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Yes. I understood my hon. friend to say that this course, was only a four months' course. They are entitled to a total of fifty-two weeks, and if they do not exhaust all the benefits of vocational training they are then entitled to benefit No. 3 while they are awaiting returns from the enterprise. That is the additional assistance my hon. friend referred to last night.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Has the Minister of
Labour secured the information I asked for a week ago to-day, when I suggested that the statistics on page 799 of Hansard as to the total applicants registered at employment offices be brought up to date?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have those figures
here, if my hon. friend would like to have them.



ASSISTANCE TO STUDENTS 1943-44

[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Fund	* General Section	Medi- cine	Den- tistry	Engineering	Science	For- estry	Hospital Nurses	Teachers	Technical School Students	Provincial Funds	Dominion Funds	1st Year	Other Years	1st Year	Other Years	Grants	Loans	Grants	Loanss	s	*	$1	2	350.00	350.005	18	4	3	43	6,905.00	6,905.00.21	4	6	17	5	1	31	12,312 50	12,312 53111	117	33	47	107	122	100	12	80	154	50,522.38	38,254.87	50,522.38	38,254.872	25	3	1	2	6,007.50	6,007.5032	43	1	25	31	11	6	19	366	11,505.00	6,111.50	11.535.00	6,111.5014	14	10	40	2	9	22	25	8,892.50	8,892.50	42	65	9	38	30	12	12	2	64	24,923.00	24,923.00	Special Dominion Fund	21	10	17	7	7	1	1,925.00	17.842,002	1	1	3	1,800 004	2,750.003	3	9	3	150.00	4,395.002	3	18	1	10	1,745.00	5,725 007	350.00	1,235.0028	4	2,925.00	7,647.0049	5	55	5,715.00	42,461.00University of Toronto	47	23	8	49	6	2	6,699.00	30,724 00207	446	91	157	395	16S	178	19	123	529	154	95,842.88	69,941.37	115,351.88	166,520.37Total Disbursements	$ 447,656.50Total Number of Students	
2,467
* Provides a limited amount for students in any year, in any faculty-mainly Agriculture, Home Economics and Arts. The upper half shows assistance given under Cooperative Student Aid Schedules of the Youth Training Agreements.
The lower half shows assistance given under Special Dominion Agreement with funds from War Appropriation.
>
k:

to
War Appropriation-Labour
' War Appropriation-Labour
Stanley Howard Knowles: Can they not be placed
on the record?	,


Humphrey Mitchell: They would fill up nine or ten pages of Hansard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The information given
on page 799 of Hansard covers six different periods and takes only one page of Hansard.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have a summary here
which I shall be glad to have printed in Hansard, with the permission of the committee.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: With the consent o'f
the committee. .


Humphrey Mitchell: The summary is as
follows:
Total applicants registered at employment and selective service offices by provinces as at March 2 and March 30, 1944, were as follows:
	March 2,	March 30,
	1944	1944
Prince Edward Island..	... 287	219Nova Scotia	.. . 2,233	2,098New Brunswick	... 1,778	1,602Quebec	... 26,253	25,737Ontario 	.. . 20.892	19,425Manitoba 	... 3,997	3,613Saskatchewan 	.. . 2,145	1,844A lberta 	... 2,987	3,243British Columbia	.. . 8,043	7,513Total	... 68,615	65,294Total applicants referred to jobs	were asfollows:	March 2,	March 30,1944	1944Prince Edward Island..	... 102	91Nova Scotia	... 797	802New Brunswick	... 926	850Quebec	... 13,370	12,220Ontario 	... 10,842	10,290Manitoba 	... 1,048	935Saskatchewan 	... 643	445Alberta 	... 839	982British Columbia	... 2,830	2,982Total	... 31,397	29,597Net Registrations in	process of	placementwere as follows:	March 2,	March 30,1944	1944Prince Edward Island. .	. .. 185	128Nova Scotia	. .. 1,436	1,296NeAV Brunswick	... 852	752Quebec	... 12,883	13,517Ontario 	... 10,050	9,135Manitoba 	... 2.949	2.678Saskatchewan 	. .. 1,502	1.399Alberta 	... 2,148	2,261British Columbia	... 5,213	4,531Total	
37,218	35,697Requests for employees	in process of being	filled were as follows:	March 2,	March 30,1944	1944Prince Edward Island....	. 133	199Nova Scotia	. 5,897	5,956New Brunswick	. 3,239	3.713Quebec	. 47,108	42,410Ontario 	. 61,846	64,162Manitoba 	. 4,125	5,879Saskatchewan 	. 3,109	3,389Alberta 	. 3,765	5,117British Columbia	. 9,876	11,657Total	. 139,098	142,482


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister did		not answer
my question as to what other vocational courses are being given in Saskatchewan and how many men are talcing the courses. How many schools giving courses of any kind have been started in military district No. 12?


Humphrey Mitchell: We keep those records not by military districts but by provinces. We have the gross enrolment in each province but not the number of schools.


Ernest Edward Perley: How can you have the gross enrolment without knowing the number of schools?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is quite true, I have not got it broken down by schools, but I have the gross enrolment.


Ernest Edward Perley: Let us have the enrolment.


Humphrey Mitchell: It covers every province in the dominion. Perhaps my hon. friend would prefer that I should put it on Hansard.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think it would be all right to have it now. It may be interesting to other hon. members.


Humphrey Mitchell: The total in the
dominion is 2,056, distributed as follows: Nova Scotia, 38; New Brunswick, 49; Quebec, 547; Ontario, 359; Manitoba, 233; Saskatchewan, 182; Alberta, 309, and British Columbia, 339. .


Mr. LOCKHART:: Would the minister
indicate to what extent the rehabilitation grants, whether in his department or in any other, have progressed as regards giving further aid to men who, having taken vocational courses, are prepared to set themselves up in business if they could obtain a small grant similar to that received by the soldier who is being rehabilitated? I think that such a grant might be accorded to men who have taken these vocational courses. I know that the Minister of Pensions and National Health is conversant with this matter. Only to-day I received another letter of the kind that I handed to the Minister of Pensions
(Mr. Mitchell.]

War Appropriation-Labour
265"
and National Health when in private conversation with him. The writer states that if he had around $100 it would enable him to finance a little project which he has in mind in a line for which he has become trained. I know that 'the Minister of Pensions and ^National Health is familiar with the arguments for this proposal, because we have discussed it. In this letter the writer points out that thousands of dollars will be available to veterans who start on the land, and he asks, "Is there any possible chance that I could get $100, or $200 at the most, to finance a little venture which I want to undertake?" Will some small amount of assistance be given to men who are vocationally trained?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may intervene once again: as the minister said a few minutes ago, the only assistance given now is what you might call maintenance benefits. No individual advances have been made so far. The whole situation is now being reviewed by a subcommittee. We are looking into what is being done in New Zealand or Australia along the lines suggested by my hon. friend. What the ultimate policy will be I am not prepared to state at the moment, but the matter is being looked into.


Mr. BRUCE:: May I ask the minister a
question arising out of the statement he made last evening, as reported in Hansard, page 2625, when, speaking of call-ups, he said:
. . . we are continually reexamining those men who have been turned down, particularly by individual physicians.
I am aware of the fact that, for many reasons which we need not enter into, family physicians have been placing certain men in a lower category; can the ministers tell us how many of these men were raised to a higher category as a consequence of further examination by boards?


Humphrey Mitchell: May I point out that the item to which the hon. member refers is passed and gone. I do not want to be too sticky about it, but I do not want to get into a general discussion such as we have had for the last four days.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The minister need not
answer to-day.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to have it. looked up and the information given- to my hon. friend.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the minister is
going to give us the number of those schools and where they are.


Humphrey Mitchell: I can get that for my hon. friend.


Ernest Edward Perley: According to the figures cited by the minister, three provinces have the greater share; one in particular has more than twenty-five per cent of these students. It would be interesting to know what courses they have been given, and the number in each province.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall endeavour to
have those particulars for my hon. friend before the close of this afternoon's sitting.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
War emergency training programme, administration, $40,460.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Are these administrative costs applied to the expenditure of the $4,000,000 in item 4, the $1,800,000 in item 5, -and the $780,000 in item 7?


Humphrey Mitchell: These administrative
costs are the costs in my own department in Ottawa, the costs of the division. As my hon. friend will appreciate, the war emergency training programme	was	decentralized	and
most of the money was spent in the provinces.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And	included	in	the
other provinces?


Humphrey Mitchell: That	is right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This	applies to	Ottawa
only?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is so.


Mr. MARSHALL:: Is the minister in a position to give the total expenditure in respect of administration for the whole dominion?


Humphrey Mitchell: I understand we have not the information complete from the treasury, but I hope to have it before the end of the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Stabilization of longshore labour (Halifax), $450,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the minister explain?


Humphrey Mitchell: This item is in connection with the loading and unloading of ships at the port of Halifax. As most hon. members appreciate, Halifax prior to the outbreak of war was largely a seasonal port. Owing to conditions, particularly on the St. Lawrence, since the outbreak of war it has become largely an all-year-round port, and what we had to do for the continual operations was to lay down a policy which we thought best fitted to serve the needs of a port as important as the port of Halifax. After investigation, we established a hiring hall, rather than the old system of what they call "look and see"; and in addition to that we established a guaranteed weekly wage in the port of
War Appropriation-Labour

Halifax somewhat similar to what they have in other parts of the world. We also built accommodation for a labour pool there to house approximately, I think, 750 men who when not engaged in longshore work are put to work at any employment which is available at that particular moment. Also recently we have established there what we call a port battalion, somewhat similar, I understand, to what they are using in the United States.
All these arrangements were made in conjunction and after consultation with the longshoremen's organization in the port of Halifax. May I in passing, Mr. Chairman, pay a tribute to Mr. Joseph Ryan, of New York, international president of the longshoremen's organization, and also the longshoremen's organization in the port of Halifax and the stevedoring companies, for the degree of cooperation which they have shown in our policies in organizing the port of Halifax so that it can carry the added burden of the number of ships which have to be .loaded and unloaded in that important port at this time.


Mr. ISNOR:: I was indeed pleased to hear the Minister of Labour refer in such glowing terms to the splendid work being carried on by the stevedores at the port of Halifax. Last year I raised the question of the value of the labour pool and the minister was good enough to say that a pool had been organized in which he hoped to employ 750 men not only to provide labour but to expedite the handling of freight at the waterfront, and also to provide emergency labour for other purposes. As I said before, it is good to hear the minister refer so appreciatively to the fine work being carried on by longshoremen at the port of Halifax. Would the minister be good enough to let us know what this labour pool consisting of 750 men has cost, the number of men actually employed, the amount of money that is paid through the labour pool, and the revenue derived from individual firms or private concerns who make use of those men?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have the figures here. The total amount of wages paid to the longshoremen last year by the stevedoring companies and the amounts guaranteed by the government for the weekly wages are S3.Ill ,482.47. The cost of the guarantee was S465,367.58, which represents 14-9 per cent of the total wage bill. May I say that we anticipate with the more smooth running of the organization, after it has been established, there will be a much larger figure to report in the next financial year.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am not sure whether the minister gave a full answer to my question. What has been paid by private firms for the use of those men?
[Mr. Mitchell.1


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought I gave that figure. It is $2,646,114.89.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The difference would be-


Humphrey Mitchell: 8465,367.58.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Have you made use of the port battalion?


Humphrey Mitchell: The arrangement is to the effect that the port battalion does not come into operation until there are no available longshoremen. It has been used on a number of occasions. I want it clearly understood that we did not put the port battalion in there until we had consulted the employees and the employers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The labour difficulties have been eliminated?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think they have been.


John Ritchie MacNicol: At Halifax?


Humphrey Mitchell: I went down to Halifax two years ago and looked over the situation. I do not know whether I should use this language or not, but I think the longshoremen were treated like sheep. That is my honest opinion. It was just a question of organizing a building and hiring hall. I am not blaming anybody. I think it was something that had grown up largely because of the seasonal nature of the operations down there. They have now a hiring hall, and we have built canteens for the labour pool which has accommodation for 750 people at the port of Halifax.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am convinced that
someone deserves credit for eliminating any labour troubles that there were in the port of Halifax, particularly in war time. As the minister said-


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: There was never any real
labour trouble there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We did have some
trouble there a year or two ago. Ships were held up in the harbour. Does the non. member for Halifax not remember that?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Yes, I remember that. There was a slight difference but there was no real labour trouble.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do not say there was no labour trouble when I say there was.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: There was no real labour
trouble.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Because I want to give
the department credit for eliminating trouble there. We just heard the minister say that some $400,000 odd were paid out, as I understand it, to eliminate the trouble and give the men proper treatment. It was only foolishness to expect men to stay there if they were to

War Appropriation-Labour
remain unemployed waiting for ships to come in or go out. Personally I think a good job was done down there, even if it cost the country some $400,000 to get munitions loaded on the ships. Am I not right in that?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Right. Would the minister touch on the contracts with respect to the handling of Canadian National Railways freight? Does that come under the minister's department?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


John George Diefenbaker: I read an address
delivered recently by one of the directors of man-power in the maritimes. It had to do with the matter of assisting the longshoremen. It went on to point out that a soldier labour battalion of 350 men had been set up and it was now being utilized at that port. Was this labour battalion recruited for overseas service, or is it a battalion of home defence men to be used in Canada?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know the status of the battalion except that the men are in uniform and under military discipline. Whether they are home defence men or not I could not say; I do not know. I have been down there and seen them. I did not make any inquiries. What I was most concerned about was to turn ships around.


John George Diefenbaker: I am wondering whether they are overseas men or not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Wartime labour relations board, $175,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Without adding to the minister's difficulties I would ask him to give us a complete picture of the work that is to be done by the wartime labour relations board and the personnel of it; whether they move around the country from one place to another or whether they are located here in Ottawa.


Humphrey Mitchell: The wartime labour
relations board has recently been established. It arose out of representations made by both employers' organizations and labour organizations before an inquiry made by the national war labour board. The code deals with the contractual obligations between employers' organizations and employees' organizations, but not with wages. Arising out of the report of the board a meeting was held with the representatives of the ministers of labour, or those responsible for the departments of labour, of all the provinces of Canada, which resulted in an agreement upon the principle of compulsory collective bargaining by law.
Following that meeting a code was drafted in my department, having in mind the various viewpoints expressed by different organizations with respect to the matter. That code was then sent to all the provincial governments in Canada, and to the dominant labour organizations and employer organizations, and resulted in the present code. We thought that we had done a pretty fair job with the original code; and having sent it to all these different organizations I may tell this committee that a total of 170 amendments were suggested by the respective organizations. I do not need to tell this committee the difficulty of trying to bring some form of harmony out of so many varying points of view, and to the credit of the draftsmen I say that after this was done the code itself received the acclaim of the general public and also of the responsible trade union labour organizations. The board has been set up, composed of equal numbers of representatives of employers and employees, with a chairman and vice-chairman. The chairman is Mr. Justice G. B. O'Connor, Edmonton, Alberta, and the vice-chairman is Mr. Justice J. N. Franeoeur, of Quebec City. Representatives of the employees are Mr. A. R. Mosher, of the Canadian Congress of Labour; Mr. Fred Molineux, of Hamilton, representing the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; Mr. W. L. Best of Ottawa, representing the railroad brotherhoods, and Mr. R. Harmegnies of St. Joseph d'Alma, Quebec, representing the Canadian and Catholic Federation of Labour. Representatives of the employers are Mr. W. H. Browne of Toronto, representing the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Albert Deschamps of Montreal, representing the contractors; Mr. A. J. Hills of Montreal, representing the railways; and Mr. Harry Taylor of Toronto, representing the Canadian Manufacturers Association. The chief executive officer is Mr. M. M. Maclean, director of industrial relations, Department of Labour, Ottawa.
In addition provincial boards are being set up, on a basis somewhat similar to the wages control policy. As hon. gentlemen know, constitutionally the jurisdiction in these matters is provincial; and in a country as large as Canada by the very nature of things, if you are to be successful, you must decentralize your operations. So that at the moment agreements are being negotiated with six of the nine provinces, with the end in view of putting the code into operation in those provinces. Already we have negotiated an agreement with Ontario-I think I tabled the order in council yesterday-where a board will be
War Appropriation-Labour

set up somewhat similar to the national board, on which there will be a chairman, three representatives of labour and three representatives of the employers. British Columbia has approached the problem from a somewhat different angle, in that there the minister of labour will administer the code. In six other provinces agreements are in process of negotiation at this moment, and I am hopeful that they will be concluded within the next two or three weeks.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is this the board which is now sitting in Windsor?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then in addition to the officers mentioned by the minister I read in the press yesterday that there is an umpire, and I was very glad to see that the umpire operating in Windsor is-


Humphrey Mitchell: Your old friend.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, I like to call him a friend of mine; I have always known him to be very competent in labour matters. I am referring, of course, to Mr. Bernard Rose, K.C., of Montreal. Is that an office in addition to those mentioned by the minister?


Humphrey Mitchell: No, and I will tell the committee how that came about. Normally this dispute would have come under the jurisdiction of the Ontario regional board, but those negotiations have not been finalized by order in council. It was necessary to have an act passed by the legislature and then for the government of the province to pass an order in council under that act setting up the board; we had to do something the same here in Ottawa. That was the constitutional procedure. In the case of the Ford dispute we made available through the national board to the company and the workers an impartial umpire whose findings would be final after the decision was rendered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a few words in connection with the set-up of the wartime labour relations board under P.C. 1003. I appreciate the statement of the minister that this labour code represents a step in the right direction and something long overdue in this country. I also appreciate the difficulties under which the government labours in view of the fact that in peace time at any rate labour matters thus far have been assigned to the provincial governments. However, while expressing approval of the attempt that has been made to establish a labour code, I do feel that there are two or three points in the order in council which will need to be watched very closely. If I may refer to the

points I have in mind, my feeling is that the wording of the order in council is neither sufficiently strong nor sufficiently clear to guarantee that the rights which it is desired to have and to protect will be secured.
First I should like to refer to the matter of compulsory collective bargaining. It does seem to me that in this day and age it ought not to be necessary to argue that the full implementation of the principles of democracy in a country such as ours calls for the establishment of the principle of collective bargaining. As the minister can very well point out, sections of this order in council would seem to indicate that it has that purpose, and that the order guarantees collective bargaining. For example, I refer to subsection (2) of section 10, which reads:
The parties shall negotiate in good faith with one another and make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement.
I am trying to be as fair as I can about this matter. The fact that the word "shall" is there does seem to give a good deal of force to that section, and might seem to answer my question as to whether or not compulsory bargaining is provided by this order. Then there is paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 25 which reads:
If a question arises under these regulations as to whether

(e) an employer, or certified bargaining representatives of employees, is negotiating in good faith; the board shall decide the question and .its decision shall be final and conclusive for all the purposes of these regulations.
Again I say that would seem to indicate that it is the purpose of this order to guarantee that there will be collective bargaining, and the wording might seem to imply that it will be carried out. However, as the minister knows, lawyers have ways and means of finding loopholes in orders like this and of getting around the clear intent of such orders. I would direct his attention to the fact that sections 19 and 20, which list unfair practices, do not contain any reference to the refusal of an employer to enter into collective bargaining.
If I may refer back to the several sections grouped under the heading "Negotiation of Collective Agreements," including sections 10 to 14, I would remind the minister that although there is the subsection which says that parties shall negotiate in good faith, that subsection is followed by a number of subsections and by further sections which, to my way of thinking, provide for considerable delay. It seems to me that opens a loophole for employers to avoid the obvious intent of the government in bringing down this order,

War Appropriation-Labour
namely, that collective bargaining1 in industry should no longer be a pious hope, as we used to say it was, but a reality.
Perhaps I should not go too far in putting words in the minister's mouth, but I imagine one of his replies to me may be that this matter is in the hands of an exceptionally good board which can be counted upon to interpret these regulations in the best possible manner, having in mind the purpose of the order. I must remind him, however, as he knows perhaps even better than I, from his longer experience in this field, that employers are adept at finding ways and means of avoiding collective bargaining. If there are loopholes such as I have suggested, particularly the delays provided for in sections 10 to 14, and the lack of any mention of refusal to bargain collectively under "unfair practices," it may be found necessary in due course to amend the order with that point in mind.
I feel there is no necessity for my arguing with the minister that we should have collective bargaining in Canada, and that it should be not just a pious hope but a compulsory provision. I am urging the minister to-day to watch very closely the operation of the board which controls the administration of the order to see to it that if there is any failure to realize the purpose of the order, it is corrected in those respects.
Another matter I would mention to the minister is that of the outlawing of company unions. Here, too, I feel that the order is not clear enough; it is not ironclad. As a matter of fact I cannot help feeling disturbed as I go through the order and see repeated time and again the expression " a trade union or employees' organization." Those terms always appear side by side. We need not waste any time arguing over the fact that there are many legitimate independent trad^ unions. I realize that in the order there must be a phraseology to protect the rights of such legitimate and independent trade unions. Yet I have the fear that the language which runs through this order is an open door to the organization of the company unions. In fact it seems to me that the only way to avoid encouraging the organization of company unions is definitely and conclusively to prevent and to prohibit their organization as a part of our Canadian industrial organization.
There are several sections, in this connection, to which I wish particularly to refer. I would direct the attention of the committee first of all to paragraph (i), subsection 1 of section 2 of the interpretation section, which defines an employees' organization as an organization of employees formed to regulate relations between
employers and employees. Something ought to be done to that section to make sure that company unions cannot meet that definition.


Humphrey Mitchell: What would my hon. friend call a company union?


Stanley Howard Knowles: A union dominated by employers in various ways. I know that under the unfair practices provisions there is section 19, subsection 7, which states that no employer shall dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of a trade union or employees' organization.


Humphrey Mitchell: What more can you get than that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me read another
section under the same unfair practices division. I direct the attention of the. minister to section 20(2), which states:
Except with the consent of the employer, no trade union or employees' organization and no person authorized by the union or employees' organization to act on its behalf, shall attempt, at the employee's place of employment during his working hours, to persuade an employee to join the trade union or employees' organization.
My contention, for example, is that right there you have the possibility of an employer refusing consent to the organizers of a legitimate union to carry on their organizational activities on a company's property, but giving that consent to the organizers of a union subservient to the employer, even though that subservience is kept in the background.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend cannot read that into the section. I cannot let that go. I do not wish to interrupt him, and I am not going to try to read a lecture on trade union practices, but I must say he is reading something into the regulations that just is not there. He is building up a straw man. I know how difficult it is when you are in the country, talking the troops up. In the country you have to do that sometimes-but not here. I cannot just let that statement go. Those who prepared these regulations know something about trade union practices, just as well as my hon. friend. They have agreed to this. We know all about employees' organizations. My hon. friend agrees there may be some good employees' organizations. But what more could be put down on paper, under these unfair practices regulations, which must be administered by employers and trade union representatives? What more could we put down on paper in connection with a question dealing with company unions and unfair practices? Let us be honest about it.
War Appropriation-Labour


Stanley Howard Knowles: To use the minister's expression, if I were talking to the troops outside I would not be talking with the same restraint, nor would I be using the' appealing language I am using in talking to the minister this afternoon. I have already pointed out that this order, and the attempt behind it. evokes a certain amount of appreciation. I have already admitted, in advance, his argument that the matter is in the hands of a well-chosen board, and that a good deal depends upon administration. But I am trying to suggest to him that if I can find little loopholes, such as those I have pointed out, then surely others who are anxious to avoid the government's intention in the order will find not only the loopholes I have pointed out, but will find others, perhaps even in section 19(1). I am asking the minister to watch very closely the operations of the board, and to see to it that they do not result in the increase of the organization of company unions in Canada.
There are only two other matters to which I would refer. I would first go back to sections 10 to 14, which come under the general heading of the negotiation of collective agreements. It seems to me that these sections offer the possibility of a great deal of delay occurring. I think I know what the minister's answer will be. He will say that it is war time and that if at all possible strikes must be avoided. To that we say, "hear, hear," but when you are trying to lay down a labour code that carries out the principles of democracy, a code to which the government ought to be able to point with pride, a code about which they should be able to say to the troops overseas, "This is what we have done for you; this is the kind of industrial organization you will come back to after you have fought for us on the other side," you should try to endeavour to avoid too long delays. As I say, I am afraid that will be the result of the applications of sections 10 to 14 of the regulations.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer, and about which the minister may say that I do not understand what is being done. I am concerned about the operation of section 5, subsection (2), particularly the latter part, which states that for the purposes of the section an employee shall be deemed to be a member of a trade union if he has requested the trade union in writing to elect or appoint bargaining representatives on his behalf. I should like to know whether that section makes it possible for bargaining representatives to be chosen by the open circulation of a petition which the men would sign, everyone knowing who has signed it,
fMr. Mitchell.]
and so on. The employer in particular would have this information. That would seem to me to be not as desirable as the selection of bargaining representatives by secret choice. If this section permits the employer to know who is joining a legitimate union or what employees are refusing to join what is substantially a company union, it seems to me that it should be amended.
The minister and I could have a hot argument about this, but I am trying to avoid that, to-day. I am rather taking the position that there is good in this order, but despite the acclaim and approval with which it has been received I feel that there are some points which are weak and which may result in the purpose of the order not being achieved. I am asking the minister, under whose supervision this board functions, to watch very closely these points and any others that may arise during this discussion.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend apparently thinks that there is a lot of good in the order, but it is hard to find. That seems to be the attitude he has taken. I do not profess to be as expert on trade union negotiations as my hon. friend.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are practical.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say to my hon. friend that the best men in this country have applied themselves to this. Let me pay a tribute to the provincial governments for the cooperation they have given, and also to the trade union leaders and employers' organizations. We may not be as perfect as my hon. friend; we are just plain, everyday practical people who like to face up to things in a practical way. I am sorry that we are not quite as far-seeing as my hon. friend. I often wonder what kind of world this would be if certain people were charged with the responsibility of drafting legislation and directing the affairs and destinies of this or any other nation.
This is an imperfect world in which we live. By this document we have endeavoured to give something that will fit the needs of the employers' organizations, the employees and the government of the dominion. I am not going to interpret the code, because that is not my business; that is the business of the national wartime labour relations boards and the other boards which have been set up for the purpose. If there are any defects they will come to life in the application of the order by those directly in charge of it and in no other way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister was responsible for the code coming into effect.

War Appropriation-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: I will take the responsibility; you do not need to worry about that. I know a lot about the company union story. I know how I was speared by certain people at one time when the going was pretty tough in this department. Let me say that I have never believed in company unions and I hope I never shall. We have endeavoured to fashion this document in order to avoid if humanly possible the old company union conditions of years ago coming into the present labour picture in this country. As I say, the code will be administered by these different boards and in the light of its application it may be found to require amendments. I do not know of any legislation that has ever been passed that did not require amending at one time or another.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to direct some questions to the minister. Is it within the powers of the board to enforce the fulfilment of the conditions of collective bargaining agreements entered into by employers and employees? Could the minister answer that question?


Humphrey Mitchell: The boards will look into that. We always are careful about that.


Donat Raymond: There was some trouble a short time ago at the Aluminum company at Shawinigan Falls. A number of employees were discharged even though there was a collective agreement between the company and the employees. Has the minister received any complaint from the employees to the effect that one of the conditions of their agreement was not lived up to? Section VII of the collective agreement reads in part as follows:
The right to employ, dismiss, transfer, suspend, promote, demote and otherwise deal with the employer's employees belongs exclusively to the employer but the exercise of such rights shall be with due regard for character, ability, family status, length of service and place of residence.
Many employees were dismissed without that section being considered. Their length of service and place of residence and so on were not considered. The newspapers reported that a national selective service man was located at the. factory to see that as these men were dismissed they received their calls for training. I should like to know if the board has endeavoured to see that this section is respected.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think my hon. friend is referring to the dispute at Shawinigan Falls with the Aluminum Company of Canada.


Donat Raymond: The lay-off there of
employees.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. In conjunction
with the province of Quebec we set up a commission, the chairman of which is Mr. Cyprien Miron, who is one of the senior officials of the Department of Labour of the province of Quebec. The other two members are Mr. Paul Fournier, the president of the Montreal trades and labour council, and Mr. Tellier who represents the National Catholic syndicate. We are expecting a report from the commission within the next few days. I might point out that this dispute took place before the code was put into operation.


Donat Raymond: The minister has no further information to give the committee?


Humphrey Mitchell: No. As soon as the
report comes in it will be made public.


Mr. MAYHEW:: I do not want to make a speech, Mr. Chairman, but I want to bring to the attention of the department and the members of the committee an organization we have in Victoria that I believe would serve as a pattern for good relationships between labour and management, a pattern that might well be followed in labour relations generally throughout the country. The organization is know as the Vancouver Island joint labour conference. It is a loosely knit group of some forty unions of different jurisdictions, but it is gaining good will for the workmen on the Pacific coast. It represents some 9,800 members in different unions, under the American Federation of Labour, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the C.I.O., the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, as well as independent groups including white-collar and civil service workers. The conference has been in existence since 1941. It holds regular monthly meetings and constitutes committees which keep in touch with developments in the region generally. It lays down one definite principle, that there shall be no jurisdictional disputes among the members. As I said, this organization has been in existence since 1941, and we have found it to be very helpful not only amongst the labour jnen but to the community at large. It is bringing respect for labour organizations, and it makes it a great deal easier for employers to find workers when they want them. Primarily the conference was organized for the development of their own best interests, but they have developed considerably beyond that point and they are now interested in community affairs. Last winter when shortage of fuel was imminent in the district, the conference organized themselves and went out and cut several thousand cords of wood, which was the means of relieving distress in a good many homes. They have become interested in a
War Appropriation-Labour

number of the activities of the community, as well as in their own affairs. I believe that if similar organizations were set up in our different communities, that is, an organization linking up all labour unions under one head, the result would be an organization that would be very beneficial to the community, and I can assure the minister that it would lighten his work. The conference I speak of is interested at the present time in nurseries, in creches, as we call them out there, and in the housing problem. It is also studying post-war work. I assure the committee that it is giving very valuable leadership in many of these projects, and I would recommend that such an organization be in existence wherever possible in Canada for the benefit of the whole community.
Before I sit down I would like to say that I consider that the Department of Labour has gone a long way in this war, and I congratulate the minister and his officials on the work they have done. I feel that out of this department will come an organization that will be most beneficial to both labour and management. I congratulate them particularly on the work they have done in the past year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not want to say a word about the Windsor strike, but I want to ask a question. I am hoping, as I am sure every hon. member is, that the labour relations board now sitting in Windsor will be successful in ending the strike, which has now continued for four or five days, affecting some 14,000 men, and costing roughly $100,000 a day, outside of what is spent by the labour unions themselves to compensate the men who are on strike. That is altogether apart from the effect on merchants and business generally in Windsor. What procedure has the department available for preventing a strike from taking place? Is there some board or some official of the department that could have been called in when it was known that a strike was imminent, to prevent the strike from taking place at all? The objective of all of us, and particularly of the department, is to eliminate the causes of strikes.


Humphrey Mitchell: As my hon. friend very well knows, negotiations are in progress for the settlement of the strike at Windsor, and I join with him in the earnest wish that both the employers and the employees will cooperate with the national labour relations board and the officers of my department in arriving at a settlement satisfactory to both parties. I would not want to say one word beyond expressing that earnest hope, because as my hon. friend knows, in industrial disputes a word that may be said here one way or the other may go out over the wires and be 
interpreted in quite a different sense. I think the less I say about the dispute the better, except to enjoin both the management and employee organizations to do their utmost to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of the dispute.


Mr. GILLIS:: I expressed my opinion briefly on this dispute a few nights ago and I have no intention of extending my remarks much further. I think the minister this afternoon was rather unfair to the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not want to be.


Clarence Gillis: I definitely think he was. The member for Winnipeg North Centre I thought was bending over backwards in order to put as nice a face as possible on this order 1003. Personally I think if seventy-five per cent of the verbiage in this document were eliminated it might be workable. If you were going to get any cooperation from the employers of this country in carrying out the principles which those who drafted that order had in mind, this order would not be necessary; No. 2685 would have done the trick. On the outbreak of war the government appealed in a realistic way to the employers with respect to labour relations, and I do not think they got any response. The hon. member for Davenport wanted to know just now the cause of the dispute in Windsor. I appreciate the minister's position and understand why he does not wish to make any observations while the matter is still being adjudicated, but I would say, as one member of this house, that the basic cause of-the dispute was that the employers abrogated their signed agreement. It may be difficult now to have the men at Windsor accept the word of employers who have placed as little honour in their signed word as they showed in that particular dispute. This is the class of people the government are dealing with in implementing the terms of this order P.C. 1003 and in labour relations generally, and unless the terms are clear and specific beyond the shadow of a doubt, the fears expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will be justified by the attitude of employers.
When I read this document. I thought of it in this way. W'hen a crime is committed and a detective is called in, the first thing he probes for is a motive. When I read this order in council the first thing that struck me was, what is the motive? In my opinion it can be found largely in the past attitude of employers to the organization of labour in this country.
However, I rose at this time because the minister disagreed with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to the

War Appropriation-Labour
matter of unfair labour practices as defined by P.C. 1003. I find that it does not define unfair labour practices; it appeals again to the fairness of the employer. The code is subject to many interpretations. In the winding-up clause, which is the meat of the whole thing, it is stated:
. . . ibut nothing in these regulations shall be interpreted to affect, otherwise than as expressly stated, the right of an employer to suspend, transfer, lay off, or discharge employees for appropriate and sufficient cause.
It boils down to this, that under that clause the operator is allowed to continue as he did previously. The minister will remember that that is the wording of section 502A of the criminal code. For the last four years organized labour endeavoured to use that provision, but it has never been able to prove absence of justification, as defined by that clause, on [DOT] the part of the employer. That is the meat of unfair labour practices. Right now, in the operation of the code, although it has been in effect for only two weeks, men from British Columbia are complaining that employees are idle because of union discrimination, and are endeavouring to have selective service adjust the matter. That is the contention of the steel workers; I corresponded with the board recently in the case. The matter of certification is becoming twisted; I cited two cases the other evening; yet the order is brand new.
As I said before, if there had been no quarrelling on the principle of the matter, P.C. 2685 would have done the trick. But any lawyer in the country can sit down and make a case for the operator if he wants to defeat the purpose for which this code is intended; they can keep you for months and months wrangling about the interpretation of this order. To me the matter is very plain. If the employees in a given plant want to form a union it is a matter of taking a vote, for the right to ballot is a basic principle of democracy; and if, when a secret ballot is taken, a majority of the employees decides to join a certain union, the Minister of Labour should have the authority to certify that union without any more fooling about it. It is then up to the employer and employee to get together in the matter of working out a collective agreement. But unless both parties are honest it will not work. There is no mystery about all this and no necessity for all the ramifications to which it gives rise. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, in trying to make this thing work you are throwing it back in the lap of the old conciliation machinery, which involves running around for months and months. I do not want to quarrel with the minister over the regulations, but I am sure the time is not far distant when many changes will be necessary, and I hope that the minister and his department will be prepared to make them. I have not much hope for the success of the provisions as they stand; there are too many loopholes.
While I am on my feet may I tell the minister that his department did one thing for which I should like to compliment them. They instituted in Nova Scotia, for the first time in the history of this country, a system of apprenticeship in the coal mining industry. The minister is fortunate in having secured some capable people to make the system work. It is the most practical thing his department have done since it has been my privilege to be a member of this house. I hope it will not be considered as merely a war emergency measure.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I am here after the next election it will not be.
Mr. .JOHNSTON (Bow River):	Alberta
has been doing that for some time.


Clarence Gillis: I think it is a good set-up and I hope it will not be considered a war emergency proceeding. All these things are done under the War Measures act and by order in council, and when the war ceases they can all automatically disappear. I should like to see the minister continue this particular measure.
I rose at this time only because I thought the minister vras taking an unfair advantage of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who in my opinion made a very fair analysis of this order in council. I shall wait with a great deal of interest until the board begins to hand out decisions in this matter.


Mr. McIVOR:: I have gone through this labour code in a study group and I have tried to find every possible weakness. Of course I was looking for constructive ways of healing sores among the workers; and I have been agreeably surprised that we can have a production like this from any house of commons in any part of the British empire.
There are two reasons why I think the measure is a good one. President Marshall made a number of suggestions, I think about twenty-eight in all, and they are fairly well incorporated in this document. Not only that, but Mr. Marshall himself went on the board to see that they are put into practice. Therefore I think the measure can be made to work. The other reason why I think it is a good code is that the premier of Ontario, who, while he has little love for the dominion government, is willing to take anything good
War Appropriation-Labour

from any source where he can pick it up, has taken this code for Ontario and wishes to apply it to all workers in that province.
I should like the minister to state in no uncertain terms whether or not the collective bargaining regulation is compulsory, because a speaker in the city of Fort William said it is not. I wish to have assurance from the minister as well as having it in the code as interpreted.


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is yes.


Clarence Gillis: Would the minister mind
explaining in what way it is compulsory?


Humphrey Mitchell: I say it is, but I do not want to take up the time of the committee in enlarging upon it. I have been very close to this thing. My hon. friend remembers the famous Governor Allen of Kansas who in the days of the late Sam Gompers thought he could make collective bargaining compulsory in the sense to which my hon. friend has referred.


Clarence Gillis: They have collective bargaining in the United States under the Wagner act.


Humphrey Mitchell: Not in that sense. The position of the three dominant trade union groups in this country is that they were opposed to the principle of compulsory arbitration up to the point where the agreement was finally negotiated. That is the official position of the three national groups. It does not matter what we think in public life about these things-


Clarence Gillis: Would the minister not say that compulsory arbitration and compulsory collective bargaining are two entirely different things?


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course they are. I
understand that. And the trade union movements of this country are opposed to compulsory collective bargaining up to the point of the negotiations of the final agreement. Let us be clear about that. They are in agreement that once an agreement is arrived at there shall be compulsory arbitration. I think I know the mind of the labour organizations of this country and the code follows the point of view they express.


Clarence Gillis: What machinery have you
to enforce the decision of this code even after going through all the slow motions?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would not say it is
altogether slow motion. I will tell you where

I differ from many people. I think a trade union agreement is not based on law; it is based on character.


Clarence Gillis: Certainly it is.


Humphrey Mitchell: And good faith.


Clarence Gillis: Certainly.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have had some experience. I know there are lots of employers with whom I should not like to bargain, and the reverse is true. I know lots of representatives of employees with whom, if I were an employer, I should not like to bargain. After all is said and done, you sit down and write a contract, one, two, three, right down the line. If you have reasonable people on both sides-and most men are reasonable-the contract can operate. It is like prohibition. All the laws under the canopy of heaven cannot make a thing work unless men have a desird in their hearts to be fair. That is my own view, and that is a view I have gathered out of my own experience in the movement. That is the general view of the leaders of the trade union movements of the country. I think there are lots of what I call the overnight revolutionaries who suddenly come into the movement and who think that by the stroke of the pen everything can be quite all right. They say that all you have to do is to write a law; that is all. It is not as simple as that. The relationship between employers and employees is a matter of gradual growth. Take as an example the British Trades Union Congress and the position they occupy in the life of the nation as well as the statesmanlike attitude they have taken toward the oresent war. That was not bom overnight. That is the result of tradition and experience over a good many years.
I sympathize with both sides occasionally. All the angels are not on one side of the street. Sometimes they lack experience and judgment in their approach to the problem of industrial relations. Take the railroad organizations of this country. They have had a case before the national war labour board for the last six or seven months. The case has been developed by both sides. Thev have gone through the channels and negotiations as they always do. You do not see them walking out on the street. You understand. I am not taking sides in this question, but it is the result of long-standing tradition. I can remember-and I am not an old man. or at least I do not like to think I am-when the relationship between the railroads and the trade unions was not as good as it is to-day. As I say, it is a question of gradual growth and good faith on both sides. I do

War Appropriation-Labour
not know that I should, say any more, Mr. Chairman. I could go on and trace the development of trade unions and the position of the American federation of labour, the British Trades Union Congress and the Trades and Labour Congress, the Canadian Congress of Labour and the other congresses, but I do not think it is necessary. It is sometimes a very difficult problem and I do not want to take up the time of the committee just now.


Clarence Gillis: I was concerned about the minister's answer to the hon. member for Fort William. The hon. member's question was definite and specific and was to the effect whether or not the collective bargaining regulation is obligatory or otherwise. I think everyone will agree that the one thing the code does not do is to make collective bargaining compulsory or obligatory on the part of anyone. It is still a matter of negotiation. I do not agree with it on that basis, because after you go through all the machinery of the code it still depends upon whether the employer is cooperative or otherwise in putting the wishes of the employees in the concern into operation. I do not think there is any use in writing a law unless you are prepared to enforce it.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say this to my ion. friend? I know he agrees with me that it is a matter of opinion. Let me say that no legislative bodies of the trade unions of Canada are prepared to allow any board to write the terms of their contracts.


Clarence Gillis: This has nothing to do with that.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, it has.


Clarence Gillis: Not a thing.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: This is just determining the bargaining-


Humphrey Mitchell: This says that they shall bargain in good faith, and it is supported by law that they shall bargain in good faith. It does not enjoin the board to write the contracts.


Clarence Gillis: Certainly not; I would never agree to that. It is a matter of whether they are to have bargaining agencies or otherwise. After that, the business of working out the agreement is their own.


Humphrey Mitchell: This provides, beyond any doubt, for the bargaining agency.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the penalty if the employer refuses to bargain in good faith?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is in the act. If my hon. friend wishes to read it he will find it there. I thought he had a copy in front of him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have. I want the penalty to support the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for Fort William.


Humphrey Mitchell: I remember we had some penalties in a previous order in council and many people objected to them.


Clarence Gillis: They were all one way.


Humphrey Mitchell: No; it was a fifty-fifty proposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fifty-fifty-one horse and one rabbit.


Humphrey Mitchell: No. I shall not argue that now, since it is not under discussion at the moment. Sections 38 and 44 are the governing sections.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Removal of enemy aliens including Japanese nationals and other persons of the Japanese race from the protected .areas in British Columbia, $2,750,000.
Mr. STIRLING:: Would the minister bring us up to date with regard to the location of the Japanese removed from the evacuated areas, where they have gone within and without the province of British Columbia?


Humphrey Mitchell: This is a break-down of the province of British Columbia: Interior housing centres-this is as of April 1, 1944- 11,214; road camps, 418; self-supporting projects, 3,162; miscellaneous, 1,188. That makes a total of 15,982. Those in the other provinces are as follows:
Alberta	 3,483
Saskatchewan	 146
Manitoba	 1.043
Ontario	 2,558*
Quebec	 394
Marl-times	 1
Total	 7,625
* 431 interned.
In the Yukon and northwest territories there are twenty-nine, giving a total for Canada of 23,636.


Grote Stirling: The first figure the minister mentioned was 11,214, which I think he said were those in the settlements?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the interior
housing centre.


Grote Stirling: Has the minister the number in Tashme by itself?
. Mr. MITCHELL: 2,488.
266S
War Appropriation-Labour


Mr. NEILL:: Did the minister give the number of Japanese bom in Canada?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will get that figure.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I know the committee realizes how difficult) it is to have hon. members speak in their proper order in connection with an item of this kind. If hon. members are agreeable I shall call first the hon. member for Vancouver South, then the hon. member for New Westminster and then the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I got into trouble . the other day over this matter, and I do not want to get into trouble again.


Grote Stirling: I suggest that an hon. member be allowed to carry on with a few questions which are interlocked; it appears to me that we would make better progress in that way.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The committee will
realize the difficulty which faces the Chairman, in that I have no list of speakers. I have to make my own list as I go along, and already several hon. members have asked if they could be placed on the list. Generally I try to alternate between the different parties, and I have found that to work well for over a year now.


Alan Webster Neill: Certainly it would facilitate the work of the committee if after an hon. member has started to ask questions he could be allowed to go on and finish them.


Grote Stirling: In British Columbia a certain amount of work is going on in connection with several road schemes, such as the Hope-Princeton road. I understand there are sixty-eight Japanese working at the Hope end of it and 120 at the Princeton end, and of course it is the very great hope of all those living in the southern portion of British Columbia that this work will be carried forward as quickly as possible. I realize that those in charge of the work are dependent for their road machinery upon what they can get from the government of British Columbia and from the parks branch, but I should like to know from the minister whether it is proposed to endeavour to get additional Japanese into these two camps in order that the work may be hastened. I am given to understand that these sixty-eight Japanese at the one end and 120 at the other are principally single men who were collected from other settlements and camps within the province, who wore ready to go and work on that road. Close by you have the settlement of Tashme; in fact the Hope-Princeton road passes by Tashme, where the minister says there are 2,48S Japanese, no doubt including men, women and children. I should like

to know whether the minister has any hope of strengthening the gangs working on that road from the inhabitants of Tashme.


Humphrey Mitchell: At the present moment there is no intention of strengthening those gangs, though something may be done next winter.


Grote Stirling: Then what is the policy of the government for the coming summer?


Humphrey Mitchell: As I indicated in my statement to the committee, the Japanese come within the national selective service regulations in regard to direction; and in view of the demand for labour, particularly in the summer months, we intend as far as possible to move these people into those industries where it is necessary to fill the gap in relieving the man-power shortage during the summer months.


Grote Stirling: Even to the extent of taking them from that province to another one?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, I would say so.


Grote Stirling: Then would the minister tell the committee the arrangements in regard to pay for these men who work in the road gangs?


Humphrey Mitchell: The pay for labourers is twenty-five cents an hour, and there are special rates for foremen and so on. The basic rate is twenty-five cents an hour.


Grote Stirling: With deductions for board?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, a deduction of sixty cents a day for board.


Mr. GREEN:: This item covers the sum of $2,750,000, and is. described as being for the removal of enemy aliens including Japanese nationals and other persons of the Japanese race from the protected areas in British Columbia. I take it-and if I am wrong in any of these statements I would ask the minister to correct me-that practically all this money will be spent in connection with the Japanese.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: And that it is really not for the purpose of removing them from the ' protected areas, since they have been removed from those areas already, but rather for their maintenance in other parts of Canada where they happen to be at the present time or to which they may be sent. Then I think hon. members should realize that this is only one of the votes with respect to those people of the Japanese race in Canada. For example,

War Appropriation-Labour
there is another item to be found at page 397 of Hansard, under the Department of Mines and Resources, in tiie amount of SI.000.000, which is described as being for the employment of persons of the Japanese race and/or Japanese nationals. 1 presume there would be a vote also under the Department of Justice for the cost of maintaining the Japanese who are interned, who according to the minister number some 431, and there may be other items as well. So that the Japanese problem is now costing the federal government and through the government, the people of Canada several million dollars a year.
In addition to the cost to the Canadian people, it is no.w quite clear that the federal government has assumed full responsibility for the movement and welfare of the Japanese people in Canada. I would point out that in most cases a Japanese cannot go from one part of the country to another without obtaining a permit. They are strictly under the control of the federal government at trie present time. This means also that the federal government will be responsible for the disposition of all people of the Japanese race in Canada after the war, and will be solely responsible for finding some solution of this Japanese problem, because the government now is in the position that it cannot abandon these people, nor can it pass the responsibility on to any other government. That responsibility rests exactly where it belongs; that is, with the federal government. That is a fitting place for the responsibility to rest, because the federal government, as distinguished from the government or people of British Columbia, was responsible for allowing the Japanese to come to Canada.
Federal governments, one after another, have refused to heed the pleadings and the warnings of the people of my native province, and of members of all parties, with the exception of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, who have come here from that province. Time and again the Canadan government has even refused to heed the action of provincial governments of British Columbia, which have gone ns far as to pass a provincial immigration measure which would base the test as to whether or not people should be admitted to British Columbia upon the applicant's ability to speak an European language. So that throughout the whole picture British Columbia has been the catspaw. and it does not propose to remain in that position any longer.
I suggest to members from other parts of Canada that this is a far-flung country. There are some things which affect one portion of the country far more acutely than they do another. People of all parts of Canada, including
those who happen to live in my own province, are intelligent, sensible and idealistic. Perhaps in British Columbia they are even more so than in other parts of Canada! But I do suggest that where one part of the country is affected by a question of this type, representations made by Canadians living in that part of the country should be heeded. Failure of Canadians east of the Rockies to help out in respect of this Japanese problem during a period of decades-in fact ever since the turn of the century-has caused more bitterness in British Columbia against eastern Canada than any other single issue. And if that problem is not faced now by the Canadian government it will, in the future, cause even morp bitterness.
There will be many other Pacific problems arising from time to time. British Columbia is the only Canadian province facing the Pacific. I hope Canada will pay attention to British Columba in the future, when Pacific problems have to be considered by the nation as a whole.
But, to get back to my subject: This Japanese problem is the federal government's mistake. There has never been a real federal policy in the matter, and I am afraid that is the position to-day. The federal government is just drifting.


Humphrey Mitchell: What does my hon. friend mean by "drifting"?


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Labour was in the navy during the last war; he should know what is meant by drifting. I repeat that the federal government seems to be drifting in respect of this question, although it is costing Canada millions of dollars a year, and it is perfectly obvious that the solution must come from the federal government.
In the debate which took place last year about the end of June, I outlined something of the history of the Japanese problem in Canada. I do not purpose repeating that to-day, but intend to deal only with what has happened since last year's debate. Since that time several hundred more Japanese have come east of the Rockies. Only a few minutes ago the minister gave the figures to the hon. member for Yale, but for the purposes of the record I propose going over them again. They show that as of March 31, 1944-not quite six weeks ago-there were in British Columbia a total of 15,982 Japanese. That is still more than two-thirds of the total number in Canada. That group is divided up as follows: 11,214 -are in interior housing centres, and of course they are being kept there at the expense of the government; 418 are in road camps; 3,162 are in self-supporting projects,
War Appropriation-Labour

and 1,188 are described as miscellaneous. Most of those Japanese in British Columbia came from the protected area at the coast; they have been dammed back, so to speak. In the Yukon and Northwest Territories there are 29.
Then, coming east of the Rockies we find that in Alberta there are 3,483; in Saskatchewan, 146; in Manitoba, 1,043, and in Ontario, 2,558; although of that number 431 are in internment camps, as dangerous to the state. In Quebec there are 394, and in the maritime provinces, only one. How he or she managed to get down to the maritimes, I do not know; but the fact remains that there is one person of the Japanese race in the maritimes. This makes a total number east of the Rockies of 7,625, or less than one-third of the total of 23.636 Japanese in Canada.
In the United States the great bulk of the Japanese were concentrated on the Pacific coast, just as in Canada they were concentrated in British Columbia. Our neighbours have succeeded in moving away from the three Pacific coast states all but about one-sixth of the Japanese who were there prior to the war. I believe that those who remain are in California, some of them in the camp at Tule Lake, where there has been so much trouble, and which I believe is occupied by Japanese who are strongly anti-American, and the rest are in the camp at Manzenar. The Americans have left only one-sixth in their Pacific coast states, while Canada still has two-thirds in British Columbia.


Humphrey Mitchell: But they are still in concentration camps in the United States.


Howard Charles Green: No; the Americans are
putting them out to employment. As I have said, several hundred have been moved east of the Rockies in the last year.


Humphrey Mitchell: They still have a larger percentage than we have in concentration camps.


Howard Charles Green: That may be. There have been several hundred moved back east in the past year. So that the government has made some attempt at dispersing the Japanese across Canada. That has been done largely by persuading or by coercing individual Japanese to come east, and then trying to reestablish them here on a permanent basis. The result of that movement has been that the brightest young Japanese have come east-and they deserve credit for so doing, for coming back and trying to begin life anew in eastern Canada. Of course that means that the group which remain in British Columbia are going to be just that much more difficult to assimilate. [DOT] 
Then, some have been brought east of the Rockies under the selective service organization, and I believe a few family groups have been moved east by the government-but very, very few. Probably that is the reason that the numbers who have come east have been so small. The Japanese are a people who stick together in families, and it is difficult to persuade families to allow individual members to move away. I think they will be taken out of British Columbia in large numbers only when arrangements are made by the government to take them in family groups.
The action of the government in the past year may be described as a half-hearted attempt at dispersing Japanese . across Canada. Actually it has only scratched the surface. If the problem is to be handled in this way it will take years and years to remove the Japanese from the coastal province.
Another feature is that practically all these Japanese who have been moved east of the Rockies have been placed in other provinces, on the basis that if those provinces do not want them to stay there after the war the government will remove them. That was a clause that was put in the agreements which were negotiated originally between the British Columbia security commission, which was the agent of the government, and the respective provincial governments. I believe that is the position to-day.
Furthermore, no Japanese are being placed in a town or district where there is any objection to them. For example, a few days ago we saw a report of a complaint by Forest Hill village against any Japanese domestics being employed. I believe a protest was made by the city of Ottawa against any Japanese coming here, and no Japanese have been brought to this city.
There is a provision that after the war they are to be removed on request, but no one knows where they are to be moved to. That is one question the people of British Columbia want answered. Is it the intention of the government to take all these Japanese back to British Columbia? Is it the intention to send them to Japan? Is it the intention to negotiate with the provincial governments to permit those who have been settled in the east to remain? Just what is to be done? Probably the federal government does not know what it proposes to do, but these are questions that will have to be answered.
Another factor is that the Japanese in British Columbia continue to hold back; they refuse to go east. I suppose they know a good province when they see one, but in any event it is quite difficult to get them to move from

War Appropriation-Labour
British Columbia. That complicates the situation. considerably. A commission was appointed by the government a few months ago to investigate the welfare of the Japanese in the interior settlements. Its report, dated January 14, was tabled in the house, and in referring to the question of dispersing the Japanese it states that much more can be done in this connection when the British Columbia security commission has more cooperation from the Japanese. It is a good deal like the calling up of men for the army. It is a sort of half pleading and half coercive proposition; it is a half and half policy that really is not getting results.
Another difficulty is that the Japanese who come east are not allowed to lease land or business premises. The minister will correct me if I am wrong in this, but I believe that that is the situation. The Japanese themselves have suggested that some provision should be made by the government to subsidize the reestablishment of families who move east, but apparently there have been no arrangements made for that at the present time.
I have been unable to get the exact figures, but I understand that between 1,000 and 2,000 Japanese have asked to be sent back to Japan.


Humphrey Mitchell: You have not been able to get a boat for them.


Howard Charles Green: That is the responsibility of the minister. When the ss. Gripsholm went back last fall she took sixty-one Japanese who had requested to be sent home, and now many more have asked to be sent to Japan. Hon. members should realize that those who ask to go back are not all Japanese nationals. You cannot divide the Japanese in Canada on the basis that the Japanese national is disloyal, while the Japanese who is a naturalized Canadian or who has been born in Canada is loyal to Canada. All those who went from British Columbia on the ss. Gripsholm were either naturalized Canadians or Canadian-born Japanese.
I think the minister will admit that the fact that a Japanese is naturalized means very little in so far as his loyalty to Canada is concerned. Generally naturalization is acquired for economic reasons, to obtain a fishing licence or for some similar reason. I have here the January 8 issue of the New Canadian, a weekly paper published by the Japanese in British Columbia in which they refer to what I have just mentioned, that naturalization or place of birth means very little. They say:
Equally well known is the fact that some, though born or naturalized in Canada, are not interested in their _ citizenship and would welcome the opportunity to go to Japan._ Some have already done so; and others have signified their intention by applying for repatriation.
No attempt has been made by the federal government to ascertain what Japanese are loyal or what Japanese are disloyal. For example, I do not see how you can expect a Japanese who is a shintoist to be loyal to Canada, because part of his religion is the worship of the emperor of Japan. Such a man or woman could not be expected to place Canada first in his or her loyalty. In the United States they have tried to find out who is who among their Japanese. I have here volume 80, number 35, of the Congressional Record of February 23, 1944, and on page 1999 is shown the question they asked their Japanese, as follows:
Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America, and faithfully defgnd the United States from any or all attack by foreign or domestic forces, and forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor or any other foreign government, power or organization?
A total of 5,333 Japanese said, "No." The record continues:
In other words, they were not willing to swear allegiance to the United States, and they were not willing to forswear allegiance to the emperor of Japan. One thousand five hundred and fifty-five answered the question in a qualified manner or did not answer it at all. Therefore, we have this situation: we have 6,888 people in these camps who refused to unqualifiedly swear allegiance to the United States.
The United States house passed a law on that date, February 23, which permitted a person to renounce his United States nationality. The following section was added to their nationality act:
(i) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the attorney general, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the attorney general shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defence.
Nothing of that kind has been undertaken here.


Humphrey Mitchell: What is the use of it when you have it?


Howard Charles Green: When you have what?


Humphrey Mitchell: Under present conditions I do not think that would be worth the paper it is written on.


Howard Charles Green: You suggest that these people should be left here whether they are loyal or not?


Humphrey Mitchell: The mere fact that they sign such a thing as you speak of is no indication of their allegiance to the United States.

War Appropriation-Labour


Howard Charles Green: You mean it would not be
any indication of whether they would be loyal to Canada?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would not think so.


Howard Charles Green: Then why does the minister have this declaration in his national selective service mobilization regulations:
That I make this declaration with full knowledge and understanding that I am thereby deprived forever of all rights and privileges to be naturalized in Canada as a British subject and that I thereby become liable to deportation from Canada whenever such deportation may be practicable.
That is a declaration put out by the minister's own department in connection with aliens who are called up and do not want to serve. They have that option.
Then the attitude of the Japanese government continues to be what it has been from the start, namely, to take a direct and active interest in their people who are in Canada and in other countries. If the Japanese government would only leave these people alone, things would not be so bad; but right from the start, in every nation to which they have migrated, the Japanese have been under the direction and control and have received the active support of the home authorities. That very fact has constituted and still constitutes a sinister threat to any nation that allows the Japanese to settle within its borders. For example, the Japanese government sent on the S.S. Gripsholm a lot of Japanese books and Japanese food to be distributed among the Japanese in Canada. A few years ago it took a census of all the Japanese in Canada and the United States; on January 28 of this year there was a significant broadcast from Tokyo; I have p. report of it here; the heading is "Tokyo claims interned Japs being persecuted." The broadcast said:
The fact that our brethren, who have been making strenuous efforts on the front lines of overseas expansion-
Mark those words: "on the front lines of overseas expansion".
-are faced with all kinds of persecution in enemy nations, is truly beyond mere words of sympathy.
That had reference to the Japanese in Canada and the United States.
Another development during the year has been the inquiry by the royal commission to which I referred, which found that by and large, the Japanese in the settlement camps were living under better conditions than they had been before the war, that they were being well treated and that they had really no cause for complaint whatever.
Another thing that has happened during the last year has been that a final report has

been published by the United States general who had been in command of the removal of Japanese from the west coast states, Lieutenant-General John L. Dewitt. He pointed out in his report many things with regard to the Japanese in the United States. The report was quoted as saying that invariably Japanese communities on the west coast flanked strategic installations, while there were no Japanese in nearby available farming sections. The report says:
It was difficult to explain the situation by coincidence alone.
Another paragraph from the report said that the west coast Japanese were "a tightly knit, unassimilated racial group", which constituted "a potentially dangerous element" from a military viewpoint and "military necessity required their immediate evacuation to the interior".
Incidentally, in my riding, just three months ago certain vacant property which had been held for years was sold by the custodian of enemy property; that property was found to belong to interests in Japan; here they were holding several vacant blocks in the middle of a residential district of Vancouver, and the significant fact was that the property lies on a hill overlooking the city, from which hill the whole city of Vancouver could have been brought under fire.
Another fact to be remembered is that all ties of the Japanese in the protected area have been cut. Their fishing boats have been sold, their properties have been sold-all their ties have been cut. It is not as though they were firmly rooted there.
Then, finally, I think the committee must give some consideration to the attitude of the people of British Columbia on this question. They do not propose to be left with the problem any longer. British Columbia faces the Pacific and the people of that province do not want the Japanese out there where they can be in contact with Japanese merchant vessels plying in and out of our harbours. There is the same feeling among the lads who have gone overseas from our province. I have here a statement made by one of these lads writing from overseas. He says:
It is just about time-
That was in February of this year.
-the people in eastern Canada realized that we will not stand for the Japs coming back. I think if the federal government allows them to return to British Columbia there will be serious trouble. All the British Columbia lads here feel very strongly about it.
I think the great majority of the people of British Columbia feel that if the Japanese cannot be resettled on a permanent basis in

War Appropriation-Labour
eastern Canada, then one term of the peace treaty should be that the Japanese in Canada should be returned to Japan in exchange for Canadians who are under Japanese control. Or if not to Japan, it mighf be possible to make arrangements for them to be reestablished in some territory in the Pacific under the control of the united nations.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Send them to
Toronto.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Fraser Valley will have to speak for himself. They could be properly reestablished in some of the territories that are being taken away from Japan and should be given full compensation. This may seem drastic and yet it has been done before. For example, shortly after the last war there was trouble between Turkey and Greece, and several hundred thousands of people were moved at that time; Turks were removed from Greece and Greeks were removed from Turkey. I have here a book entitled "The Lost Peace", by Harold Butler, formerly secretary of the International Labour Office of the League of Nations. At page 229 he describes that exchange of population. He says:
The process of interchange would be difficult and often painful, but experience has shown it to be practicable. Nearly four hundred thousand Turks who had dwelt for generations in Europe were uprooted and transferred across the Bosporus, while a large number of Greeks whose forefathers had for long lived in Asia Minor were brought back to Hellas. Their *absorption took time and money. I saw some of the Greeks in Euboea and the Peiraeus, where they were beginning to make a new life under very hard conditions. But they were no longer surrounded by alien and often hostile neighbours, and by degrees they found their niche in Greek national life. In the long run they and their children would come to enjoy greater happiness and security among their own people. A source of endless friction between the two races had been cut out by a drastic but salutary surgical operation.
He points out that the Germans followed this principle of avoiding racial conflicts by forcibly removing their compatriots from the Baltic states. He says:
What they did brutally and ruthlessly can be done with much greater success toy friendly agreement under international auspices. The segregation of races with strong mutual antipathies is one of the conditions of peace in eastern and southeastern Europe.
I ask for a clear-cut announcement of government policy on this whole Japanese problem. Let me place these questions before the minister. Is it the plan to remove all the Japanese from British Columbia, or are some to be left there, and, if so, how many?
100-168}
Are they to be kept out of the province of British Columbia for good? Can the minister give us assurance that they will not be sent back to British Columbia?
. Are any plans under way for returning any of these Japanese to Japan? If so, what group or groups?
What does the government propose to do with those Japanese in other provinces if the government of any province requests their removal after the war?
These are questions which should be answered by the minister. I would urge upon him to realize that the problem is not yet solved. We have not begun to solve the Japanese problem in Canada. Further, the problem will not solve itself, nor is it of the type that can be forgotten, and so evaporate; it has to be worked out, and it must be worked out by the Canadian government. I hope that when the minister has a chance to speak on this matter he will give us an answer to the various questions I have asked him.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will answer my hon.
friend in a few words. I cannot tell him what is to be the after-war policy with respect to the Japanese. This dominion is not the only pebble on the beach. I suppose all these questions will be decided at some international gathering charged with laying down policies with respect not only to this question-


George Alexander Cruickshank: What is -the minister's opinion?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right, but-


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to -the
minister that not one -of these questions has to do with after the war. I asked: Is it the plan to remove all Japanese from British Columbia? Are they to be kept out of that province for good? Can the minister give assurance that they will not be sent back -to British Columbia? Are any plans under way for returning any to Japan; if so, what group or groups? What does the government propose -to do with -those in the other provinces if the government of any province requests their removal after the war? Not one of these has a thing to do with an after-the-war programme.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am making my speech.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Answer the questions. We do not want speeches.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have said there is a
body of public opinion, particularly in British Columbia, favouring the return of all Japanese, whether nationals or bom in this country. That viewpoint has been expressed. As I have indicated previously, I do not know, and I
War Appropriation-Labour

do not think anybody knows at the present moment what will be the .policy of this government or any other. When all is said and done, let it not be forgotten that we have not yet won the war. Unless we do win it, we shall not have much say about the matter.
I know something about the difficulties and complexity of this Japanese problem. I am not going to tell the committee the conditions under which I went to British Columbia or surveyed the war in the Pacific and the Atlantic, the problems of Hong Kong, Singapore and the Dutch East Indies. I am not going to tell that story because it cannot be told at the present time. But when hon. members talk about the movement of Japanese, let me ask, how can you expect any agency, whether governmental or private, to accomplish the free movement of these people in face of the objections which my hon. friend has in his mind when he casts doubts upon the Japanese as individuals? Remember the conditions which have been built up. We must face the fact that many people in eastern Canada feel that every' Japanese is walking around with a knife in his hand.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why are you sending them back to British Columbia after the war?


Humphrey Mitchell: Nobody has said that we are going to.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Why do you not answer the hon. member's questions?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Your agreement
says that you will send them back to British Columbia.


Humphrey Mitchell: The agreement does not say anything of the sort, and my hon. friend knows it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It certainly does say it. Table the agreements. You are afraid to.


Humphrey Mitchell: I cannot say any more than that. The problem has been made more difficult by the expressions of some hon. members and some other people in this dominion. I feel that our achievement up to date in connection with the Japanese problem in this [DOT]country is as good as that of any country *which has to deal with this very difficult ^problem. We have endeavoured to-
.Mr. CRUICKSHANK: -keep them in British Columbia.


Humphrey Mitchell: -move the Japanese to productive employment rather than keep them in camps. My hon. friend spoke of the financial commitments. I believe that the labour department estimate is correct. The fact that the Department of Mines and

Resources contemplate an expenditure of a million dollars for this purpose during the coming financial year cannot reasonably be charged to the Japanese problem as undertaken by the Department of Labour, because it is productive employment. I do not know, but I assume that they want to build roads, and that sort of thing. If the Japanese were not to do that, other people would have to be paid to do it.
I think I have answered pretty well all my hon. friend's questions.


Howard Charles Green: You have not answered any yet.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Not one.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister will take the trouble to read from the transcript of Hansard the questions I asked him about five minutes ago-


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I answered them all. As to one particular question my hon. friend asked me, what will be done, whether now, to-morrow, and after the war, frankly I do not know.


Howard Charles Green: I have noticed that when the minister is dealing with his estimates, instead of answering the questions, in many cases he makes a speech. That is what he has done on my questions.
Mr. AlITCIIELL: I do not think there is any law against making a speech in this chamber. Aly hon. friend has just made a forty-minute speech.


Howard Charles Green: I will just repeat these questions. Is it the plan to remove all Japanese from British Columbia? Are they to be kept out of that province for good? Can the minister give assurance that they will not be sent back to British Columbia? Are any plans under way for returning any to Japan; if so, what group or groups? What does the government propose to do with those in the other provinces if the government of any province requests their removal after the war?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear. Straight questions.
Mr. A1ITCHELL: If I may be permitted, before six o'clock-it is almost six o'clock-


George Alexander Cruickshank: You can answer them before six o'clock.


Humphrey Mitchell: Aly hon. friend does not need to be clever.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is not necessarily being clever at all. We want an answer.

War Appropriation-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: When I endeavoured to answer the hon. member for Vancouver South I was told that I should not make a speech, and he has just made a speech for forty minutes. I suppose this discussion will go on this evening. At this time I should like to place on the record the figures asked for by the hon. member for Camrose; the subject is, the number and percentage of men whose categories on reexamination were raised to
"A" and '*B". With the permission of the committee I shall be glad to put that on the record.
On the other question, raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, as to the number of training centres in the dominion, with the permission of the committee I should be glad to place them on the record too.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: With the consent of the committee.



NATIONAL SELECTIVE SERVICE MOBILIZATION REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Medical Categories
Number and Percentage of Men Reexamined Whose Categories were raised to A and B
Administrative divis
London, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Kingston, Ont	
Port Arthur, Ont	
Montreal, P.Q	
Quebec, P.Q	
Halifax. N.S	
Saint John, N.B	
Charlottetown, P.E.I. ..
Winnipeg, Man	
Vancouver, B.C	
Regina, Bask	
Edmonton, Alta	
No. of men	Increase	Percent	increasereexamined	A	B	A	B3,303	318	22-9%	2-2%7,494	2.243	20-6%	6-2%1.504	485	12-7%	4-1%205	-93	18-3%	-8-3%21,283	3.986	28-1%	5-3%4.527	2,268	21-9%	10-9%1,752	612	26-1%	9-1%... 12,814	3,502	978	27-3%	7-6%... 1.095	218	118	19-9%	10-8%234	-138	0-0%	-3-5%1.710	193	23-2%	2-6%.. . 1,923	372	100	19-3%	5-2%... 5,050	408	-102	8-1%	-2-0%... 199,002	46,512	10,968	23-4%	5-5%been used	Ontario-	
Nova Scotia
[Stage Direction]
Nova Scotia Technical College Dalhousie University R.C.M.P. Building, Halifax New Glasgow Trenton
New Brunswick

Camp'bellton Edmonston Fredericton Moncton
Saint John (2 centres)
Quebec-*
Cartier ville
Chicoutimi
Granby
Grand-Mere
[Stage Direction]
Lachine Lauzon
Montreal Le Plateau
Montreal. Octave Cassegrain, Wm. Lunn
Montreal Tech, Maisonneuve
Port Alfred
Laval University
Quebec Technical School
Rimouski
Shawinigan Falls
Sorel
Thetford Mines Three Rivers Verdun
Belleville
Brantford
Brockville
Cobourg
Collingwood
Cornwall
Fort William
Galt
Guelph Vocational School
Guelph Ontario Agricultural College
Hamilton
Ontario Teacher Training College Hamilton Technical Institute Westdale Technical Hawkesbury
Kemptville Dairy School Kingston Kirkland Lake Kitchener
London-University of Western Ontario Bell Technical School Niagara Falls North Bay Orillia Oshawa
Ottawa-High School of Commerce Technical School Owen Sound Renfrew
St. Catharines	[DOT]
Stratford -Sarnia
Smiths Falls Sudbury
War Appropriation-Labour
[Stage Direction]
Toronto-Central Tech.
Danforth Tech.
Northern Vocational Western Tech.
Central High School of Commerce University of Toronto
Windsor
Manitoba-
St. Boniface Winnipeg
Daniel McIntyre School
Manitoba Technical Institute
Gordon Bell
Anna Gibson School
St. Johns Technical School
University of Manitoba
Saskatchewan-
Moose J aw Prince Albert Regina (two centres)
Saskatoon
Alberta-
Calgary-Airport
Institute of Technology Exhibits Building King George High School Western Canada Tech.
Medicine Hat Lethbridge Red Deer Edmonton
British Columbia

Nanaimo
New Westminster Prince Rupert
Vancouver-81 Robson Street
John Oliver Highschool 'King Edward School .	McDonald Annex
School of Navigation 910 Pacific Seymour School Vancouver Technical School Alexander Street Seaview High School Victoria-Market Building
King's Road School Topaz Avenue Victoria High School.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. REID:: Under this item of $2,750,000 for the removal of enemy aliens including Japanese nationals and other persons of the Japanese race from the protected areas in British Columbia, I have some questions I should like to ask the minister regarding the Japanese who are in the interior; but before doing so I wish to make certain remarks, following those made by the hon. member for Vancouver South this afternoon.
The hon. member for Vancouver South pointed out that all hon. members from British Columbia with the exception of those
fMr. Mitchell.]
of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are unanimous in their views on this very important question. May I say at the outset that I take the strongest objections to any person or party accusing me, when I speak on this subject, of speaking from a racial point of view. There are those who are always looking upon the world from a theoretical or idealistic point of view. Then, there are those who have idealism but who never forget the realities of life that are facing the country. And, of course, there are those who, when facing questions, have no idealism at all. May I say that I am one of those who, while having quite a lot of idealism, likewise endeavour to face the facts. It is most unfortunate indeed that this question, which is now becoming something of a national one, should have in British Columbia become a political question. I say without fear of successful contradiction that the cause of this lies entirely with the leaders of the C.C.F. party, bacause up until 1933 or 1934, the Japanese question in British Columbia was never a political question. The entire population and all political parties in existence at that time were unanimous in their opposition to the encroachment of the Japanese. Before 1933 no one would have thought of getting up on a public platform or going around lecturing regarding the Japanese; because it was understood among the people of British Columbia that this question was an economic one, although British Columbia had borne the brunt of the Japanese problem without any sympathy or support from any other province.
But when the late respected leader of the C.C.F. rose in the House of Commons and said that if he and his party were elected they would grant the vote to the Japanese, the question then for the first time in the life of our province became an active political question. I challenge anyone to examine my own political activities and say that I ever during any election mentioned the Asiatic question or the Japanese. My views, however, have been long known, and have been frowned on by some. Those in higher circles and some theorists said:	"This man Reid,
hates the Japanese." I refute that. I do not know what can be done to bring them to our viewpoint, but we who hold this view do so dispassionately and without hatred. What we did was from a sense of duty, because we realize, and have realized throughout the long years, the grave danger that faces this country, and the fact that if this problem is not solved by the people of Canada it will ever occur and reoccur as time goes on.
I shall not have time in the forty minutes at my disposal to deal with every aspect

War Appropriation-Labour
regarding the question; but the one danger we feared in British Columbia if the Japanese were given a vote was this, that they do not look upon the vote as we do, nor would they vote individually. If the Japanese were given the vote I feel sure that in whatever province they were located they would vote en bloc. It is my personal view that if they were voting in any province that would permit them to vote, other than British Columbia, everyone of them would vote C.C.E.


Alan Webster Neill: Why not?


Thomas Reid: It is strange that that party has taken unto itself the job of supporting the Japanese 100 per cent; and the Japanese support the C.C.F. 100 per cent. The minister may if he wishes to. do so, refute the statement I am about to make, but it has been seriously said and never refuted that before the Japanese met the British Columbia security commission and had a conference with them they met the leaders of the C.C.F. party and discussed their position with them. I have no personal knowledge of the truth of it, but that statement has been made publicly and, so far as I am aware, has never been challenged.
I came to the House of Commons in 1930. I can well remember the resolutions introduced by myself on the Japanese question, and how I was laughed at when I pointed out the encroachments that they had made, how they controlled the British Columbia coast with their fishing boats, and that their maps were better than the Canadian government maps and likewise our admiralty maps. Those statements were admitted in this house by Lord Bennett, who was then Prime Minister.
Members from the maritimes and from the other provinces have said to me in the corridors here: "Oh, we are tired of hearing about the Japanese." I want to sa}' to these people in all kindliness that I still hold those views and that in taking the stand I am taking I am taking it not altogether on behalf of British Columbia-although primarily that is true-but on behalf of all the Canadian people. I challenge any member inside the house or any individual outside the house to refute the statement which I am about to make, namely, that the Japanese in Canada are an unassimilable_race. I have made that -statement all through the years in which I have been protesting against them. Is there an hon. member who will rise in his place and say they can be assimilated in this country by marriage? I know I have heard it advocated by those idealists, but who in all seriousness would do it? These theorists do not want the experiment tried in their own family, but they are perfectly willing to have the experiment tried in some other family. They do not
want the Japanese to marry into their family, or their family to marry into a Japanese family,
If the Japanese are unassimilable, would any hon. member rise in his place and argue the contrary? If so, I would like to hear him. Are we then to allow 23,000 of them to live here and grow and grow? For, mark you, the reasons for their coming here were not, as many think, like those of the Chinese. The Chinese came to Canada in the early days when there was a labour shortage here and at a time when our railways were expanding. But the Japanese did not come here under the same auspices. The Japanese came here later under a definite plan. I could quote article after article going back to 1900 and even earlier than that to show that there was a great plan for the conquest of the Pacific coast, if not the world, a plan laid down by the Japanese hierarchy. They set out in those days to encircle with Japanese the countries surrounding the Pacific ocean. The Japanese came here with the help and under the auspices of the Japanese government, and settled on the Pacific coast. That is one reason why they did not settle inland. The Japanese government wanted them on the coast. Had we not taken their boats away from them and taken them inland when war was declared, no one could have foretold what action they might have taken.
I intend to read one article, Mr. Chairman, and I do so in order to link it up with the statement I have made that they are here under a definite plan or understanding with the Japanese government and assisted by the Japanese government. May I point out that in 1937, according to the Japanese government records, some $45,000,000 were returned to Japan from Japanese immigrants on the Pacific coast; that is from South America, the United States and Canada. The sum of $45,000,000 was returned as part of the loan which they received. The Japanese government went further in its long-headed scheme for world conquest. It saw to it that the Japanese immigrants coming to this country and other countries on the Pacific were equally divided as between males and females. You will find that the number of males and females are very nearly equal, though that is not so in regard to the Chinese or the Hindus. Of course that was part of a definite plan; the Japanese government realized that there had to be women here with the men if the Japanese population in Canada were to increase. In the ease of the Chinese, only about ten per cent are women, while only about one per cent of the Hindu population are women. As a result, these two races have not caused any
War Appropriation-Labour

War Appropriation-Labour

requested to do so. Reports are prevalent-
I have no way of proving them-that the Japanese are taking these assets and buying property again through the medium of Canadian citizens. In British Columbia tracts of land are being bought, obtained by the Japanese through the release of these assets. It is said that certain white Canadians-and I use the term "white" in contrast to the Japanese-are acting as agents. It is stated that these sales are proceeding apace, and . that when the war ends, all the Japanese will have to do will be to come back to British Columbia, and these properties they have bought, or are buying at the present time, will be released to them. I should like a statement from the minister on that point.
I also notice that the minister in his speech said that some 21,000 Japanese had been evacuated. I wonder where the other 2,000 have gone?-because there were more than 23,000 of them. 'That is something further which perturbs me. The rehabilitation fund looks to me like a move by the British Columbia security commission to make provision now so that the Japanese will not be moved, but will remain here. I do not know whether the government has given assent to that policy; but a full explanation is due this chamber as to why it is being done.
One could go on at greater length, but I do not wish to cover the ground discussed this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I have endeavoured to touch upon other aspects of the problem, and I have pointed out that in so far as the people of British Columbia are concerned this problem is looked upon as a very serious one indeed. I repeat it is most unfortunate that one party has taken the Japanese, so to speak, under its care, and has become their champion.
I know that all members of that party do not agree with them, but I did notice that-


An hon. MEMBER:: What party is that?


Thomas Reid: It is the C.C.F.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: The great humanitarian party!


Thomas Reid: The idealists and theorists of this country are probably leading the people along the wrong path.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not the idealists-the theorists, probably.


Thomas Reid: Like many others, especially those among us who know what we are talking about in this connection, I have been endeavouring to speak from a practical point of view. We * reiterate the statement I made that if the Japanese are left there the problem

will recur. The reason I speak to-night is that we want to keep this issue alive, and to warn the government of our feelings. We are pointing out that after the War Measures Act is withdrawn the Japanese question might be left to the provinces again, and there is no doubt in my mind where they will go- because the Japanese government wants them on the coast.
I am very sorry the hon. member for Vancouver East is not in his seat at the moment; I will not use his name by way of criticism, but I would say this to him: If you are going to reinstate the Japanese in British Columbia and to give them the vote, then you cannot, after having done that, say to them, we are not allowing you to work here, there, or elsewhere. And I want one of the C,C.F. party to rise in his place in the house and say they will put the Japanese back in the fishing business. I want a statement on that question. In 1934 I was one of those who took steps to get them put out of the fishing business. That was long before 1939 or 1944. I fought the matter all the way through, but I was only laughed at. I take strong exception to anyone who says that I have done this because of racial hatred. I did it from a practical point of view. I tried to take a lesson from what has occurred in other countries. Let the C.C.F. say they will give the Japanese jobs and they will find the Japanese will get back in the fishing business. If they give the Japanese the vote and they become full-fledged citizens of the province, will my hon. friends take the stand that they cannot go here, there or anywhere. They will be able to go where they like. Let them again get a foothold in the fishing business and the other fishermen of British Columbia will find out what will happen. As the representative for New Westminster I feel that I should fight for the heritage which rightfully belongs to the people of this land.
My time has about expired, but I wanted to put these questions to the minister. Here are some more questions I should like him to answer. What has been paid for hospital accommodation for the Japanese? Would he explain the rehabilitation plan and the plan for employment? How many are still being maintained and how many are employable? Is maintenance being withheld from Japanese who are employed? We hear a great deal about the shortage of men. If they are all that they are claimed to be by some members of the government and by the C.C.F., why do we not take steps to make them work instead of maintain them? That is, if they are Canadian citizens, if they are as good citizens

War Appropriation-Labour
as the minister sometimes says he thinks they are, why are they lying back and not working during this period of man-power shortage?
Here is another question I should like the minister to answer if he can. I received a telephone call the other night from a newspaper reporter in Toronto. He asked me a question for which I have not as yet found an answer. He wanted to know if the Japanese who are under the control of the mounted police come under the price ceiling regulations with regard to wages. I asked him why he wanted to know and he said that a friend up the street had a Japanese working for him for $65 a month; she was working around the garden and doing things like that. She left because someone else offered $100 a month. The reporter wanted to know if everyone in this country was under a price ceiling regarding wages. I think this point should be cleared up, perhaps not by the Minister of Labour but by some other minister. Are these people under these regulations, or are they being protected and allowed to do things which ordinary Canadian citizens are not allowed to do?
I have endeavoured to deal with this matter with as little heat and in as reasoned a manner as possible. I feel very strongly and believe that we in this country should not allow other groups of people to stay as Canadians and still own allegiance to other countries. If that is allowed to continue we can never make a great country of Canada in the future. That is my belief and I have' always held it. As long as I am going into this question may I point out this other fact. I hold the view that if we had had two or three languages throughout the length and breadth of Canada the peaceful and harmoni-our relations with our neighbour to the south would not be as close and friendly as they are at the present time. I hold to the belief that the turmoil and trouble now taking place in Europe are due, in part at least, to the many languages spoken on that continent. I am against groups coming from other lands and attempting to perpetuate their own languages and carry on as they did in the country they came from. At a later stage of the proceedings I shall perhaps enunciate my views more fully on this.
I thought it my duty to-night to join with the hon. member for Vancouver South and other hon. members from British Columbia in pointing out that this is a national problem which cannot be settled just by brushing it to one side. I consider it to be my duty to let this committee and the country know the feelings of the majority of the people in the 100-169J
constituency I represent. In closing, I again ask the minister to give me answers to the questions I have asked.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer both the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Vancouver South who have asked me several questions with regard to policy. The first question had to do with immediate policy, and in reply I would say that the government will take such action from time to time in regard to the removal and transfer and movement of Japanese as may be consistent, prudent and advisable in the light of existing circumstances.
With regard to post-war policy, I think I expressed our opinion this afternoon. May I say to my hon. friends that I have definite views on this question, views just as strong as those expressed by the two previous speakers-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do you agree with them?


Humphrey Mitchell: -but they are sitting there and I am sitting here, which is an entirely different matter. In view of changing conditions on account of the war I am not in a position to forecast government policy. But I do thank hon. members for taking it for granted that we shall be sitting here when the war is over. May I say to my hon. friends that when the opportune time arrives, and there is a question of timing in these matters, I think they will find that the policy of this government will be in conformity with the broad interests and ideas of the Canadian people.
The hon. member for New Westminster has been a close student of this question and he lives in close contact with the problems which have arisen in British Columbia. He raised a question about something in the report of the British Columbia security commission with regard to the rehabilitation grant or assets of $250 for grown-ups and $50 for each child. The purpose of this is not to rehabilitate in the sense in which that word is generally understood. Where there are assets, those assets are reduced to that point before they receive any assistance from the Canadian government in the way of maintenance.
Another question raised was that of our own people buying farms on behalf of Japanese in a surreptitious way. This matter has been investigated on a number of occasions by my department and up to this point we have not been able to ascertain that such a condition exists. It may be that it does exist, but it has been investigated by the mounted police and no evidence has been forthcoming that would warrant such an assumption.
War Appropriation-Labour


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there a law in British Columbia that prevents the Japanese from holding land?


Humphrey Mitchell: At the present time, absolutely, by order in council under the defence of Canada regulations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is only temporary.


Humphrey Mitchell: As to the payment of maintenance in the camps, no maintenance is paid to any Japanese who is employable; let that be clearly understood. My information is that there is no one in the settlements who is unemployed and that those outside are employed in gainful occupations. As I indicated this afternoon, they come under the national selective service regulations, and the committee can rest assured that where these people can meet the needs of labour in parts of the dominion, where direction is necessary, the regulations will be put into force.
Before taking my seat I wish to thank the hon. member for New Westminster and other hon. members for bringing the viewpoint of British Columbia on this problem to the attention not only of myself but also of the house and the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under the defence of Canada regulations are the Japanese considered as alien enemies? If so, how can it be that they come under the regulations of national selective service?


Humphrey Mitchell: They are persons of the Japanese race.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, we are at war with Japan. The government declared war against Japan with great acclaim, although we have not been fighting against them very much.


Humphrey Mitchell: Seventy-five per cent of the Japanese in the dominion were bom here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not make them Canadians.


Thomas Reid: Will the minister answer the question I asked as to a discrepancy in the figures, and also as to the Japanese language being taught to the children?


Humphrey Mitchell: The discrepancy arises in this way. One figure deals with the Japanese evacuated from the protected areas, and the other figure deals with those outside the evacuated areas. The two together give the total.


Thomas Reid: What about teaching the
Japanese language?
fMr. Mitchell.1


Humphrey Mitchell: As far as my department is concerned, no teaching is being given in the Japanese language. But we cannot stop the parents from talking to their children in Japanese. However, no official recognition is given to the Japanese language in the .matter of teaching.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are they not teaching Japanese in the schools right, now?


Humphrey Mitchell: Not officially.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, well!


Humphrey Mitchell: Not in the schools that we are operating.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You are supplying the school and they are teaching the Japanese language.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, they are not. My hon. friend will have to take my word for it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You take my word. You are wrong, and I know it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not taking your word for it. I know, and you do not.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, any remarks
I make with regard to the Minister of Labour and his policies will not be addressed as criticism of him. I have watched with great interest his career since he first came into the house as an independent member and I think he has done well under very difficult circumstances. Perhaps it would have been better for his reputation and for his conscience if he had not been in the position he is in to-day, for he has almost admitted that while he possesses one set of views he is compelled, by the principle, I suppose, of cabinet solidarity, to do something that is against his conscience. All I can say is that I sympathize with him, but I do not admire him for that.


Humphrey Mitchell: Is a man in public life supposed to have a conscience?


Alan Webster Neill: It was said by a member
of this house a few days ago that after his experience in Ottawa he viewed all men as crooks until he found to the contrary. I do not subscribe to that idea at all. I deprecate it. I want to say that in the 245 men in this house there is not one bit more crookedness than anywhere else.


Humphrey Mitchell: I agree.


Alan Webster Neill: I was going to say that the
form which this debate has taken to-night illustrates a point that came up when we were held up to reproach on the ground that we were delaying the house by debating the proposed changes in the rules, and finally were

War Appropriation-Labour
charged with holding up the war effort and hurting our boys in Europe. I have spoken only three times in this long session, and w-hat I was doing the other day when we were debating the proposed changes in the rules was to preserve for our boys on the other side when they come back a right which woyld have been taken away from them if that thing had been railroaded through as was intended. But for that unreasonable fight, as it has been called, that we put up, the members here to-day would have found themselves checked, for, if the proposed change in the rules had been put through, the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Vancouver South would have found themselves limited to speaking for only twenty minutes, or half what they did, and they would have found that they could speak only once. The result would have been this. The minister would have had two courses open to him. He could have heard what the members said and then just sat tight and laughed off our criticism and have felt that he did not need to answer it because the rules would have said that we could speak only once in committee. Or he might have taken another line. He might have said in reply to some member who had spoken, "Your statements are false," and the member to whom he addressed himself could not have replied because he would have had the right to speak only once. That is the right, the right to speak, that we were fighting for the other day, and it will be seen to-night what a good thing it was that we did fight for it.
I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South. He put the case clearly and with not the slightest suggestion of appealing, as the hon. member for Vancouver East always says we do. to racial jealousy and racial ill-feeling. Even the hon. member for Vancouver East could not possibly say that the hon. member for Vancouver South injected any element of ill will or racial feeling or anything of that kind, because he was most temperate in his remarks.
If ever there were a time when a member should feel impelled to express the views of his constituents, I feel that it is now. I have never in all the many years that I have represented my riding seen such a unanimity of purpose, such a grim, black determination along the lines that we have advocated here this afternoon, of removing the Japs from Canada at the close of the war. Almost every public body-the legion, the city council, boards of trade, labour unions, the I.O.D.E., for even the ladies have a share in it-has expressed itself, and in no measured terms,
and without qualification, that they want the Japs removed from Canada. They want that,, and they want nothing less.
The Minister of Labour said just now that 75 per cent of the Japs in Canada were born here. I saw that somewhere else some time ago, but it is simply not so. I have the figures here, and after I sit down, if anybody wishes to challenge my statement, I can quote them. But it is not seventy-five per cent. I admit that he might be bewildered as to what figures he should use, because all kinds of figures are put out for the asking. The hon. member for Westminster talked about a little inside clique which was on terms of friendship with the Japanese. I do not know where the friendship comes in or who professes it; I do not think it is shared by the Minister of Labour, but the fact remains that you can get any kind of fake-figures you like. I have a statement in my hand showing a difference of six thousand betjveen the number of Japanese at a certaim time and six months later. They do breed,, but they do not breed as quickly as that. However, I have not time to go into that.
The hon. member for Vancouver South suggested that there were only twenty-five thousand of them and that it should not be such a terrible job for the government to deal with them, and he gave a very good illustration based on what happened in one of the European wars, where they traded; Greeks for Turks, or Armenians, and four-hundred thousand people were transferred! The scheme worked well and benefited all parties to the deal; ultimately it made for their peace and good will and happiness. There is a long difference between twenty-five thousand and four hundred thousand. But let the door be opened, and they will have to be counted not in hundreds of thousands but in millions, because the Japanese like the western part of Canada. There is an idea that Japan is being crowded out of its own lands. That is nonsense. They have a large island-I think it is Hokkaido-where there is plenty of room for them, but they do not like the climate; they much prefer to come here, where they find a more congenial climate.
The hon. member for Vancouver South also asked, if they are not expatriated where will they go? I would ask the minister that question; he ought to have some idea what he proposes to do. Apparently that is a forbidden subject. We can spend a large amount of time on discussions looking to the post-war period; are we going to do nothing with this question, the most burning question in British Columbia? Apparently it must not be dealt with. The Mexicans have a word "manana".
War Appropriation-Labour

meaning to-morrow, and apparently it is in that spirit that we are asked to deal with this matter.
The Japanese have to be taken away. Where are they to be shipped, or where are they to go when they are taken away from the other provinces:	I hold in my hand an agreement
which bears the minister's signature, or which, at any rate, he sanctioned. It was made between the British Columbia security commission and the province of Alberta. Let me read one sentence:
The commission agrees to remove or to have removed from the province-
And this applies to other provinces.
-upon the termination of the state of war now existing between Canada and Japan, the Japanese temporarily placed or maintained *nothin the province pursuant to the terms of this agreement, as requested so to do by the province.
The other provinces-Alberta, Manitoba, possibly Saskatchewan, and I am not sure about Ontario-would not allow the Japanese to be admitted until this agreement was signed. They are to be taken away from those provinces at the end of the war. Where are they going? To British Columbia? Why unload them on British Columbia? We did not bring them into existence or bring them to our province, and we did not sign an agreement of this kind because it was from our province they were taken away on account of the war. Why unload them on us? Why should our wishes not be respected? Our objection should be the more readily regarded, because we know them from long experience, whereas Alberta knows of them only from what it has heard from us.
It has been suggested that they might be left where they are, say a couple of thousand in Alberta, the same number in Ontario, and so on; that it would not matter so much if there were a few Japs here and there, rather than twenty-five thousand in one area, and that by and by the whole thing would sort of simmer down, for people are very forgetful. As a British Columbian I would not mind an arrangement like that, but as a Canadian let me say that this would only be spreading the evil. If you put your hand on a pool of water it spreads; it does not disappear. It is very much as though we discovered three hundred cases of smallpox in Canada, and instead of segregating them all in one place and providing doctors and nurses to attend them, we spread them over a number of different towns and said, nobody will notice a case of smallpox here and there, and everything will be lovely. On the basis of that theory we are going to start clusters, centres, cancers if you like, of this alien pagan race in every province, all

reaching out and spreading out like some evil pool of poison in the province, and by and by they would unite.
Remember that, by the law of the dominion government, if any provinces gave a Jap the right to vote in a provincial election the dominio^ will follow suit. The Prime Minister said himself in this house that he would adhere to that, and that if British Columbia or any other province allowed them to vote in provincial matters he would allow them to vote in dominion elections. They did vote recently in the Ontario election and they can vote in a dominion election in other than British Columbia. They vote in the other provinces, because ours' is the only province which has withheld the vote from them, it being the only province really interested. If you allow them to spread all over the dominion, it may well happen that some man who has got in by a close vote, and has reason to believe that two hundred Japanese voted for him, would be likely to favour them when he is elected. Once let them get the vote and that is what will happen.
Some people have the idea that it is only a small matter because only twenty-five thousand are involved. It is only twenty-five thousand because we got legislation passed preventing their entry. I have been here since 1922, and I have piles bf speeches which I made on the subject, and with some results. We got an act passed in 1924 cutting down Japanese immigration. They were coming in at the rate of eighteen hundred a year and we got the immigration reduced to one hundred and fifty. The United States government out of a clear sky passed a law in, I think 1924, prohibiting altogether the entry of Japanese. It was at that time we made a fatal mistake. I begged the Prime Minister almost on my knees to put into the law the word "oriental". He excluded Chinese, but he did not exclude Japanese, though the number was cut down to one hundred and fifty.
The hon. member for Westminster said something about Brazil. When the Japanese were shut out of the United States they made advances to Brazil, and negotiated one of these cursed gentleman's agreements, which only binds one side, to allow them to come in. This happened around 1925. Some years ago-I cannot recall the exact year-Brazil abrogated that gentleman's agreement, repudiated it lock, stock and barrel, and prohibited the entry of any more Japanese. They found that the gentleman's agreement worked there just as it had done here. The Japanese ran railroads through it and came in by hundreds and thousands, until Brazil got its fill of them and passed this prohibition law. That is a fine

War Appropriation-Labour
illustration of a race which had had no previous intercourse with the Japanese, finding from bitter experience what it amounted to.
I tried to put a bill through in 1938, and if it had passed perhaps things would not be quite as bad as they are now. But I prophesied, even at that time, what would happen, and before that, as I say, I got the immigration rate cut down to one hundred and fifty.
Here we are in the middle of a ghastly war, confronted on every side by evidences of the atrocities of this enemy, and we are here discussing, with our fingers in our mouths, what further privileges we can grant the Japanese. Someone said that the soldier would not recognize us here. What would the soldier think if he knew that we were trying to let more Japanese in, and to keep them here, instead of providing for our own men, so that they would have a place to go fishing and somewhere to live under the sun when they came back. Are they sitting in the diet in Japan discussing what further privileges we can have in their country? I wonder how many white men vote in Japan under any circumstances. . What is sauce for the goose is certainly sauce for the gander.
The minister left out one of the stock government phrases; I will give it to him for what it is worth because he may find it useful. I have heard it so often that I have almost forgotten it. Oh, yes: "That, of course, is a matter of policy which will be disclosed in due course." Well, he did not bring out that one, I admit, but he rang all the changes on the rest of the political evasive gags.
I heard this years ago from another cabinet minister. He said: " It will be time enough to talk about removing Japs; I will attend to this after the war." If you do not do it now you will not do it later. It reminds me of a story about the devil. The devil was holding a committee meeting in hell one time. He had been approached and told that there was an evangelical revival taking place on the earth. He was afraid that it might succeed in ruining his power, and so he said to his assembled devils: "I will give great privileges and honour to anyone who can stop the thing. Have any one of you anything to suggest or a plan to stop this revival of which I am afraid?" One devil said one thing and one another. One said: " Send me; I will tell them that there is no hell." The devil said, " Oh, you are a fool; everyone knows there is a hell. A lot of people are living in a hell right now." One suggested one thing and one another, and finally one little old devil in the corner said, " Send me; I will tell them there is a hell and there is a heaven, but-there is lots of time
yet." The devil said, "You are the man, you go." He went and the revival was killed. Lots of timel Those are the words we are to get to-night from the government, to-morrow and to-morrow. Let me tell the minister that tomorrow it will be too late. After the war is over, after you make peace, you will not be able to approach on this question any nation that has been at war. We presume we shall give them decent terms, but you cannot at that time say to them: "We want to export, deport or expatriate your nationals," because a lot of them are British subjects. You cannot do that after the war. They could refuse to take them. This has to be part of the terms of peace. That is why we are so insistent that it should be made part of the terms of peace when the nations meet to work out the terms.
The minister said, and I think it Was uncalled-for, that some of the speeches made in this house to-night and others made along that line recently actually make it more difficult for the government to settle this matter. He did not use the word "war", but the government always end up every reply to criticism like that. It does not matter if it is the question of the collection of garbage. They will end up by saying: "You had better be careful now or we shall accuse you of trying to hold up the war effort." The minister did not use the words "war effort", but he said something very nearly approaching that. I should like to know why the elected members of this house should be criticized for making some definite effort to find out what the government is going to do at the peace table with a bunch of people like the Japs. It will be too late to do it after that.
What we want from the minister, and I make no bones about it, and what the people want, is a pledge that a demand of that kind will form part of the peace terms, and that the government will use their best efforts to see that it is carried out. Of course I admit, as the minister said, that we are only one among a lot of nations, and what the other nations want will certainly have to be considered. No one says anything else. Why twist, our statements? Why put words in our mouths? What we do ask is that the government declare their policy on this question. What we ask them to do is to declare that this will be the policy of the government, which the minister speaks for, when they come to discuss the terms of peace, and that the Prime Minister will stand up, advocate, demand and press for that policy, and that he will do his best to see that this is carried out.
Canada has been great in war; she will be great in peace and at the discussing of the
War Appropriation-Labour

peace terms. She will not be thrown down. Other nations may not be sympathetic, but she will not be thrown down. A demand couched with the ability, eloquence and force of the Prime Minister behind it will not be thrown down. That is all we ask. If the minister cannot pledge that just now, why not adjourn the debate? All that we have been doing for a while has been to adjourn things anyhow. Let the minister adjourn the debate until Monday and then tell us to what extent he can meet us in that regard. Above all, do not tell us that we are holding up the war effort because we want a statement. We are entitled to a statement. What is the speech from the throne? Is it not a policy, a programme and an enunciation of views and matters of policy that will never be passed this session? Before the Prime Minister went to London he unloaded a whole lot more, some additions and some just reiterations of what he was going to do this session, things that will take quite a long time. It is not a statement of policy for the session; it is a statement of policy of the party, and I would expect that the government will be going to the country on it.
If you glance through the speech from the throne and what was unloaded on us the other day I think you will admit, if we can do all that, surely the minister can do something about formulating a policy for the future. Somq of the stuff in the policy is a chart for the next twenty years. It will not hurt to go a little farther with this policy and reassure the people of British Columbia in this respect. Does he not want support; does he not want help? With the exception of the hon. member for Vancouver East and a few people whom he represents, there are very few people in British Columbia who do not want the Japanese treated as we have suggested; and I do not say that with any ill will toward the Japanese. I say in all kindliness that it will be in the best interests of the Japanese themselves, because if they return to their fishing boats and so on and our men come back from overseas and hear of the atrocities that have been perpetrated against our men in the east, it will be bad for the Japanese, not for the whites alone. There will be blood shed. We want to avoid that. It would be far better for the Japanese. Let them go their way and let us go ours.
I have not said anything about race or creed. I have not attempted to raise that issue at all. But we say, as the hon. member for New Westminster said, that these people will not assimilate and cannot assimilate. They do not want to assimilate. The real

test of assimilation is marriage. You cannot get anything else without that. They simply do not want to do that. They approach you and say it makes their heart bleed on election day when they see white men going to vote and they cannot. That is all poppycock. When the war broke out we had to close sixty-nine Jap schools, entirely Jap staffed, where they taught the Japanese language, Japanese culture and Japanese doctrines. We got some of their stuff. It was all written in Japanese, of course. We got some of their textbooks translated. It was anti-white man stuff. They used to leave the white schools where they got all they could out of our culture, and go across the road to their own schools, and where there were not enough pupils to run a school they had travelling teachers going around spreading their propaganda or what they call the Jap culture. These are the people we are asked to accept.
We are then told: "Oh, but you are talking about the first generation. Of course, they are more or less attached to their own country, the same as we would be." That is not so. In the committee that the hon. member for New Westminster talked about we had some very clever Japs as witnesses. One was a professor; another was a dentist; another was a teacher, and there was another man. They told us all about why they wanted to vote. I said to the one who was a college professor: "You have a habit of registering your child with the Japanese consul, and therefore he remains a Jap; yet at the same time he is bom in Canada and claims all the rights and privileges of a British subject." He said: "Yes." I said: "That is a pretty good thing for you." He said: "Yes, we find it quite a convenience." I said: "What about those schools? Do you think it is a good thing to have these schools where they teach the very opposite to what is taught in our schools?" He said, "Of course, it is a pity, _ and we older ones wanted to do away with them, but the third generation, or the younger generation thought we had better keep them on." So much for that. It is the third generation that want them. It is currently reported by those in a position to know, such as the secret intelligence officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, that the third generation is the one that has to be watched, because they are better educated and they know how they can work acts of espionage and things like that. They give the information, and so on. He is a trained man. He may appear perfectly fair in many respects, but he is a spy for all that.
I ask the minister not to evade the issue, but to be honest and frank. He did evade the question asked by the hon. member for

War Appropriation-Labour
Vancouver South. He said that these things are to be considered. It is the same old reply. For heaven's sake, take a definite stand. Give us a definite understanding so that we can go home and tell our people exactly why we were turned down. Let us know, and then they have the remedy in their hands. Do not let us go home and say that we were handed a lemon, and a very sour lemon at that. If we are to have this Jap love feast, let us say so. The hon. member for Vancouver East, whatever his feelings, at least is the spokesman of the C.C.F. and he never misses an opportunity to speak for his oriental friends. If the minister would pledge his government to fight for the repatriation and exclusion of these people, that is all we ask; and all we want is a definite statement. If there is any doubt about it, leave it over until Monday.
With regard to the other nations, I have spoken of that already; I know the other nations must be consulted. The Prime Minister might go to the peace conference and be turned down, but we would not hold that against him. I will take his word for it if he gives this House of Commons the pledge that he will do his best at the peace conference to get this thing put over. That will be all right as far as I am concerned, and I think the people of British Columbia would take him at his word. But we will not be satisfied with anything less, any subterfuge, any sidetracking, any "to-morrow". Those things are not for us; we want a definite pledge. I am not talking now in the interest of votes, for I am not going to run again; that is well known. But if it were the last thing I could do I would still fight for that policy. It is the thing for British Columbia, where our children and grandchildren have to live. It will be only a few generations until the Japanese will overrun western Canada, unless we do something about it. For that reason I join with the other hon. members who have spoken, and I believe that every hon. gentleman coming from British Columbia, with the one sad exception, is of the same opinion.


Mr. RALSTON:: I wonder if I might intervene for a moment, just on one subject. The committee is discussing an item under the Department of Labour dealing with the removal of enemy aliens from protected areas. Quite naturally the committee has drifted into a debate on a much broader subject which I know is extremely close to the hearts not only of members from British Columbia but of members from all over Canada. However, what the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, with his usual crispness and, I if I may say so, his usual irony and, if I may add, his usual forcefulness, has discussed to-night is a matter of
government policy with regard to the post-war period, a matter which does not come under this item at all, but which has to do with the 'Department of External Affairs, and which involves one of the most serious and grave considerations with which we have to deal.
I submit to my hon. friend that no other domestic question can be of any greater importance, as affecting our external affairs, than this question of the Japanese, and I say that any declaration of policy made in respect of that question must be made after the most serious thought and study, and with every word of the statement carefully weighed. I make that statement because, as we all know, at the present time there are Canadians in Japanese hands. I am perhaps more interested in that angle of it from the point of view of my department than any other hon. member, and I suggest that you cannot have responsible ministers simply rising in their places and, right off the bat, declaring what are going to be our post-war policies with respect to the Japanese, in view of the situation in which we find ourselves. I am not timid; if it would do the slightest good to make a declaration tonight I would, if necessary, communicate with the Prime Minister, who is the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I do not think there is any necessity for that, for that question does not arise under this item. I know the Prime Minister has had this matter under his personal consideration; I know he realizes the gravity of it, and I know that when the time comes a statement will be made.
My hon. friend, of course, will say that this is "to-morrow" of which I am speaking. I am speaking of to-morrow, but a to-morrow perhaps not as far away as my hon. friend may think. I believe I can promise the committee that a full statement will be made this session with regard to this matter of policy, in so far as it can be forecast at this stage. More than that I cannot say; more than that I do not think the committee ought to ask. The estimates of the Department of External Affairs will be under consideration. Those estimates will afford ample opportunity to discuss this whole matter and for the Prime Minister, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, to deal with it. I ask the committee to accept this statement, made in all good faith, not simply for the purpose of putting off, but because the matter is serious and one on which, I quite frankly tell hon. members, neither I nor, I think, any of my colleagues in the government here feel qualified or in a position to make a declaration, in view of the gravity with which this particular question is surrounded.


Alan Webster Neill: If I might say just another word, personally I would accept that sugges-
War Appropriation-Labour

tion. If we can get a definite statement like that this session I think that is a reasonable proposition, though I am speaking only for myself.


Mr. ESLING:: Perhaps I might offer a few words in connection with the internal situation in which we are very much interested locally. The federal government accepted the responsibility of evacuating the Japanese, and the policy was to decentralize them. That policy was carried out largely by centralizing about one-third of them in Kootenay West. Therefore you will see that we have considerable interest in the matter, particularly in view of the fact that we also have seven or eight thousand Doukhobors, so that we have quite an interesting community. Anyone who reads the report of the royal commission must conclude that the Japanese are very well cared for; in fact, in many respects it must be admitted that they receive more consideration and care than our own people are given. They are granted an allowance if they are unable to earn a living; they are provided with shelter and all conveniences, and I think they are quite satisfied. There is not very much cause for grievance on the part of the Japanese.	.
In that connection I should like to cite one instance. In my district there are four or five small communities totalling about five hundred people, and the nearest doctor is thirty-eight miles away. The fee for coming to that settlement is SI a mile. I am not disputing the fee; I am pointing out that greater consideration is given to the Japanese, because in the Japanese settlement they have a thoroughly modern hospital, with everything right up to the minute, with a well paid attendant physician, nurses, orderlies and so on.
I do feel, and all my people feel, a very keen- interest in what is to happen to the Japanese at the conclusion of hostilities. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni just read the agreement by which, on the conclusion of the war, these Japanese are to be removed from the interior settlements. The other day, in order that the appropriate department of the government might have ample opportunity for consideration, I placed this question on the order paper:
Will the Japanese be removed from the settlements in Kootenay West on the conclusion of hostilities?
The reply was that this is a matter on which the government had not yet arrived at any decision. Naturally that is a matter of interest to our people. They want to know if they are going to have the Japanese in Kootenay West for all time, or whether any effort is to be made to remove them. For 
instance, there is a method of allocating family groups to practically every community in Canada. Well, thus far out of about 8,000 settled in my district, it is indicated in the answer to a question placed on the order paper that in the course of three years they have been able to remove 700. At that rate it will be eight or ten years after the conclusion of the war before they are removed.
The government preaches-we hear it over the radio-the spirit of cooperation in aid of the war effort. I cannot conceive of any greater spirit of cooperation among the various provinces than a willingness to accept a percentage of these Japanese. But when we talk about sending them to Toronto, or to a city in any other province, there are always resolutions in protest saying, "We do not want them; we are perfectly satisfied to have them remain in British Columbia." But we in British Columbia are not satisfied, and we hope that that matter will be given some thought.
Now, as to disposing of them, it makes no difference whether they be native-born, naturalized or nationals. The same disposition will have to be made of them. They cannot remain very well in British Columbia because we have taken their agricultural lands and turned them over to the soldier settlement board. That is an indication that there is not much prospect of putting them back on the coast-and the coast has indicated that it will not have them. May I assure the government that we in the interior think we have, had enough of them. Certainly we shall have had enough by the time .the war is concluded.
I would ask hon. members to visualize what would happen in any community in this dominion if there were planted alongside that community either 6,000 or 7,000 Doukhobors or 6,000 or 7,000 Japanese. It would not take long for those Japanese to enter all the fields of industry and business. Then there would be further trouble.
I am not going to ask the minister any questions connected with external affairs, but I am going to ask him one question, and give him plenty of time to answer it. This is not a difficult question, but it is one which very seriously and closely affects the community in my district. Regardless of the defence of Canada regulations, which permit a certain amount of leniency toward Japanese, and regardless of any other measures, I want to ask the minister if he will not assure the people of British Columbia in Kootenay West that the Japanese shall not be permitted to purchase land, and that they shall not be per-

War Appropriation-Labour
mitted to engage in business. I am asking the government to do that, in cooperation with the provincial government.
In other words, continue to let the permits be given out either by the selective service branch, or by the wartime prices and trade board, but in connection with that let it be known that the provincial government must also issue a business licence. It is not fair for these Japanese to be placed in a district so that they may open various lines of business -not so many just now, perhaps, but they will soon be growing. It is not fair to have them engage in business in competition with merchants who have been in business trying to eke out an existence for the last forty or fifty years.
I am making a simple request, and if the minister will just give us the assurance I ask, we shall trust to the future, so far as having the Japanese removed from that district is concerned.


Humphrey Mitchell: With reference to the
Japanese owning any property, may I say that that cannot be done without permission of the Minister of Justice. To my knowledge I do not think any permission has been granted to Japanese, whether nationals or otherwise, to purchase property. My hon. friend may rest assured that the representations he has made this evening will be kept in mind by myself and passed on to the Minister of Justice.


William Kemble Esling: May I interrupt the minister? We have had this matter before the Department of Justice and before the Department of Labour, because there are indications that the Japanese are engaging in business. It would be a simple matter for the minister or the government just to assure the people of Kootenay West that the government is not going to permit those Japanese to go into business, either by licence, by purchase of land, or by the rental of premises for business purposes. Having endured the Japanese and the Doukhobors for all this time, the people of Kootenay AVest are entitled to a break, and to a little consideration.


John Ewen Sinclair: I am one British Columbia member who, as yet, has not had an opportunity to put his views on the Japanese question before the committee. I have listened to what the Acting Prime Minister said as to the appropriateness of this discussion on this item. It is my intention to speak entirely within the item.
The attitude of British Columbia members toward the Japanese question cannot be laid to war hysteria. For forty years British Columbia members of parliament have come to this
House of Commons and have said the same thing. Very early they realized that the Japanese could not be assimilated into their province, and they have said so. Year after year after year they have received these nebulous assurances that the matter was being studied, and that some policy would at some time be brought down. In the discussion to-night in which British Columbia members have. taken part there has not been a single word of racial antagonism. There has been no mention of the horrors of Hong Kong, or of what the Japanese have done to United States and Canadian prisoners, or to the British prisoners they have taken. We have put it to-night as British Columbia members have put it for the last forty years, on the ground that Japanese do not fit into British Columbia, to begin with, or into Canada, secondly.
I am in the very happy position to-night of representing a coastal constituency in which there is not one Japanese-and that for the .first time in forty years. I hope, and the peoplev of my riding hope that that condition will continue after the war. I believe all the people of British Columbia, with the exception of the leaders of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, are agreed that the Japanese must go-the veterans, the trade unions, the womens' organizations, and, above all, the soldiers, sailors and airmen who are fighting for this country.
We hear about the problem of sending
23.000	Japanese back to Japan. Right to-day I am told that in this country we have over
30.000	German prisoners of war, and we all know that they will be hustled back to Germany very quickly and easily after the war is over.


Thomas Reid: We hope so.


John Ewen Sinclair: So that I can see no difficulty at all in getting 23,000 Japanese who are still Japanese-and so long as they are Shintoists and worship the emperor, they are all Japanese-back to Japan. However, the time perhaps is not opportune to discuss the removal of Japanese from Canada to Japan after the war, but certainly this is the opportune time and it is appropriate under this item to discuss the removal of the Japanese from the protected areas in British Columbia to the rest of Canada.
For forty years British Columbia members have come to Ottawa and talked about this Canadian problem. The rest of the members have regarded it as a British Columbia problem. But, put 23,000 Japanese for the duration of the war in the other eight provinces, and it will become a Canadian problem, and we shall hear the hon. member for Temis-
War Appropriation-Labour

couata, the hon. member for Regina, and the hon. member for Cumberland raise their voices, as we have raised our voices all these years. And for the first time they will decide that the Japanese have no place in our Canadian life.
There has been a problem of defence. When the war is over we shall still have to think about defence. When Japan is beaten there will still be millions of Japanese who will stay on and breed again as they have done in the past-because they breed like rabbits. Twenty years from now, and they will again be looking for living space; let us not misunderstand that. We must have a white bulwark built up through which the Japanese cannot pass.
The Japanese who are interned must be well treated, and they are well treated. Our own standards of decency demand that and we do not want reprisals upon our boys who are prisoners of war. The only suggestion of persecution that has come from any Japanese has come from the 8,000 who have been transported east of the Rockies. There are many good Canadians who live east of the Rockies who do not regard that as any special persecution.
The people of British Columbia want answers to these questions, not necessarily from the Minister of Labour because, after all, he is the head of only one department. He has indicated to-night that no matter what he may think as a cabinet minister, as a private member he thinks as we do. In British Columbia we have heard another cabinet minister say that the Japanese shall not c'ome back to British Columbia after the war. But the people of British Columbia want answers from the government to the four questions asked this afternoon by the hon. member "for Vancouver South, which cover purely domestic matters and which should be settled right now even though we are at war.
The people of British Columbia would also like to hear some members from other provinces speak on this issue. For too long this has been considered to be only a British Columbia issue. We were all pleased early this session to hear the hon. member for Davenport speak learnedly and well about the problems of the west. The eastern members should consider some of the problems facing British Columbia on account of the Japanese and the Doukhobors. The people of British Columbia would like to hear from C.C.F. members from other provinces whether or not they are going to welcome the Japanese with the same open arms as the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Chairman, 1 have listened to a number of British Columbia members speak about the Japanese. The hon. member for Vancouver North who has just taken his seat said that no member from the east has ever spoken on the Japanese question. I would draw his attention to the fact that a couple of years ago when the Japanese question was so pressing I was attacked by labour unions of one kind or another in Ontario for saying that we would take the Japanese under supervision if nothing else could be done with them. We did that and to a certain extent we relieved British Columbia of their problem. But we do not want them after the war and we took them on a definite understanding.
I have known the Japanese for a great many years since I am connected with a company that has done business with them. I do not want to see the Japanese put in the same category with the Chinese. You cannot trust a Japanese. I admit that we have not raised our voices enough about this matter, but if hon. members will cast their minds back they will remember that every time the Japanese were referred to in this House of Commons the ambassador from Japan would be sitting in the gallery. The next day we would have the Prime Minister or somebody on the opposite side saying, " Hush, or they will declare war on us."
We do not want the Japanese and that is all there is to it. If we have to take them as internees under supervision we are quite willing to do so, but we do not want them competing with labour in Ontario. In listening to what has been said to-night, I was struck with the thought that if bill No. 37 were in operation and these things were said outside the house, we would all be in gaol. Let the C.C.F. tell us the reason for this bill.


Thomas Reid: I am pleased to hear the hon. member say that he does not want the Japanese, but where will he put them?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: As the hon. member for Vancouver South has said, the same problem has been handled before by the Greeks and the Turks in times gone by. I do not think we shall have any difficulty in handling it. The hon. member for Vancouver North has said that it will not be a very great job because we have 30,000 German prisoners who will have to be sent out after the war.


Alan Webster Neill: What is the name of the bill to which the hon. member referred, and who introduced it?

War Appropriation-Labour


Mr.   BOSS@St. Paul's: It is bill No. 37 and it was introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver East. It is to amend the criminal code and perhaps I should read it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I think we would be going too far in the discussion to read a bill which has nothing to do with the item.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What party is that?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not know. As I say, I do not want any slurs and aspersions cast upon the Chinese during this discussion. There are some very fine Chinese in my riding in the city of Toronto; in fact I think I have one of the finest in Canada. His name is Chung Hong, and there is another one by the name of Ernie Marks. I am very much interested in the Chinese and I happen to be a patron of their patriotic .society. I like them and I do not want them mixed up with the Japanese. They have done a wonderful job; that is all there is to it. I hope I have made my position clear as far as the Japanese are concerned. All hon. members have to do is to read some of the things said about them by Admiral Nimitz. It is such things as these that let us know just what the Japanese are.
Mr. O'NETQLL: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the remarks of the acting Prime Minister who referred to matters of policy, I am not perhaps so enthusiastic, but I think I would be remiss in my duty as the member for Kamloops if I did not say something with respect to the Japanese question. The hon. member who has just taken his seat has saidi that he is quite prepared to have the Japanese in Toronto for the duration of the war.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I did not say in Toronto.
Mr. O'NEILL: But he does not want to have them after the war.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I said in Ontario, under supervision. We have some of them now.
Mr. O'NEILL: In Ontario, but they are not going to have them after the war. Where are they going to be?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Back in Japan.
Mr. O'NEILL: That is quite all right, but we do not know whether they will be back in Japan or not.
As the hon. member for Vancouver North has said, this is not a question for British Columbia alone; it is a question that concerns the whole Dominion of Canada and it should be so treated. Before the Japanese were moved from the restricted area on the coast
there were none in Kamloops, and now North Kamloops looks like little Tokyo. There are about seven or eight hundred of them there. In June, 1942, we were given an undertaking that the Japanese would not be permitted to have any gasoline or to own cars or trucks; they were not to be permitted to have cameras or radios and so on. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the white people around Kamloops have no gasoline to take their families out joy-riding on Sunday. Some of the newest, finest, biggest and best cars in the district are owned and operated by Japanese, and they are out joy-riding on Sunday in those cars. Naturally, when the white people see that, they want to know what the government intends to do about the Japanese after the war, and I think they have a perfect right to ask that question.
The loyalty of the Japanese has at times been questioned. Some people have said that there has never been a case where it has been shown that there was any disloyalty by the Japanese, and certainly no sabotage. I am not in agreement with that statement. When the Japanese had to be moved out of the restricted area at the coast, a chain of the finest camps I ever went into was built for them around the Yellowhead pass from Jasper to Blue River, and two thousand Japanese were moved in there to work on that road. Immediately the Japanese started to stage sit-down strikes and what have you, until finally they had to be moved out of there. Their principal grievance was that they were not permitted to live with their wives and families. Well, what about our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen? They are not permitted to live with their families. They have to go to the fighting front. But when the Japanese come along, j'ou have to provide them with accommodation where they can live with their wives and families. After they were moved out of the Jasper district, they were taken to South Slocan. I have here photographs of one of the camps. The government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars putting up buildings to house the Japanese, while many of the wives and children of our fighting men could not get a place to sleep. Yet we did all that for the Japanese! Then we have the leader of the house rising in his place and asking us not to ask the government what our policy after the war with respect to the Japanese should be. Well, Mr. Chairman, if the employees of the Department of Labour would not make the statements they do in public, perhaps members of parliament from British Columbia would not be making the statements they are making on the floor of
War Appropriation-Labour

the house. But a Mr. Trueman of the Department of Labour made this statement in Toronto. He said:
The reason for mass evacuation of Japanese from Pacific coastal areas was not because of the Japanese but because of the white residents. The problem was one of mass hysteria and race prejudice.


Alan Webster Neill: Who was Mr. Trueman?
Mr. O'NEILL: He is one of the employees of the Department of Labour. He was put in there to handle the Japanese question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: A scab.
Mr. O'NEILL: In my judgment, he is a Jap. A man who would make such unforgive-able statements and display such ignorance of our Japanese question should not, I submit, be left in that position. That is one man who keeps the people of British Columbia believing that this government intends to keep the Japanese here when the war is over- and we certainly do not want them.
Manjr more things could be said about the Japanese, but I am going to close my remarks to-night by asking this question. What does this government-not the Department of Labour but this government-intend to do about the Japanese who own short-wave radio sets in Canada? They are operating shortwave radio sets in Canada right to-day, and when they can have a short-wave receiving set, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they have a transmitting set as well. They have them right in my district now. They get more privileges than anybody else in Canada. It is commonly said that the restrictions on butter and sugar do not apply to the Japanese. I do not know whether that is true or not. But certainly the restrictions placed on white men in getting gasoline and in getting lumber to use around the farm do not apply to the Japanese. There are no restrictions of that kind with respect to them. The Japanese get all the lumber they want, and there is a lot of activity going on. These Japanese are presumed not to be buying that land. Then who is buying the land for them? Surely we are entitled to know who the men are who are acting as agents for the Japanese. There must be somebody there who is doing that, because nobody will move off his land and let a Japanese take possession until he gets paid for his land-and the Japanese are moving in there. There are some five hundred to six or seven hundred Japanese right at Kamloops now. Before the war they were not there. Our position is just the reverse of that of the hon. member for Vancouver North. He has not any Japanese now, and he hopes it will remain that way. We have the ones he 
had before the war, and we hope that they will not be around Kamloops after the war. We do not say they have to go back to Vancouver North. It would be considered unparliamentary if I were to tell you, Mr. Chairman, where they should go. But at least I can say that they should go back to Japan.


Mr. BURTON:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation of the addresses we have heard this afternoon from members from British Columbia, starting with the hon. member for Vancouver South and on down the line. They have presented their case very well. They have kept the bitterness of racial hatred out of it, especially after the Minister of National Defence gave the committee some reasons why we should not carry this debate to any great length, for the safety of our own in other places.
As I listened to hon. members from British Columbia presenting their case to-day and sensed the intensity of their feeling on this question, while I am not intimately acquainted with the Japanese problem, I have considerable sympathy with the hon. members. I spoke to this house just a short time ago on another matter and pleaded then with the house to be tolerant so far as the racial origins of Canadian citizens were concerned. Since that time the request has been made that someone from this group should speak. I am not the leader of this group, nor do I take it upon myself as the youngest member of it to speak for the group. But I have always felt with respect to any group of people that we welcomed to these shores, so long as they endeavoured to become true and worthy citizens of Canada, there should be no discrimination against them. I have held that view all these years, and I appreciate the fact that hon. members from British Columbia, in discussing the case of the Japanese, refrained from bringing racial hatred into the discussion, although as the debate progressed I fear the tone became worse because of the fear or hatred some members had of the political party to which I happen to belong.
In my opinion this question is too important to be used as a pretext for stirring up the feelings of the people. Yet some hon. members could not avoid dragging in references to the party to which I belong. They could not practise the tolerance which they displayed to what is certainly a far greater danger to the country than the C.C.F. They could not refrain from the opportunity of playing a little politics on a question of such vital concern to them and to the rest of Canada. One hon. member even brought up a reference to bill No. 37. It was entirely beside the point; but he did not tell the

War Appropriation-Labour
committee that his own leader in Ontario passed a similar bill last session; he refrained from mentioning that his own dominion leader, while premier of Manitoba, and with the support of hon. gentlemen of the opposite party, passed a similar measure. It is all right when the Liberals do it; it is all right when the Conservatives do it, but lo and behold-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I brought to the attention of the hon. member for St. Paul's when he was speaking that a discussion of bill No. 37 was out of order, and I must apply the same principle to the hon. member for Humboldt.


Joseph William Burton: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, to have gone beyond the limits on this question. I bow to your ruling and acknowledge that it is correct. May I ask, however, why, when questions like this are under consideration, some hon. members seize the opportunity to indulge in little party bickerings for the sake of partisan advantage. To my hon. friends from British Columbia I would say that, if the issue is as serious as they have represented it to be, and I do not doubt their word, it behooves them to try to engage the good will of all of us to have it properly settled. In making my plea for racial tolerance and good will, I had primarily in mind those who are prepared to become true and worthy citizens of Canada. If the people to whom the hon. members refer refuse to become true and worthy citizens, that is another matter, but they must still be regarded as human beings. Whether British Columbia or any other province wants them or not, we have to find some way of dealing with the problem in a truly Christian manner. That is my reply, as far as I am concerned, to hon. members who wanted to hear an expression of opinion from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Transfer of ex-coal mine workers ibaek to the industry, $250,000.
Mr. HANSELL:: Before this particular item carries I wish to bring one or two observations to the notice of the minister. As he knows, my constituency includes quite a large coal mining area known as the Crowsnest pass, and I believe this item interests the coal miners there. May I refer the minister to the case of the transference of a coal miner back to the Crowsnest pass from the Pacific coast. He will recall the case to which I refer, and of course it is an individual one, but I have promised my people that I will take up their individual grievances, and I have tried to do so. I told them that their problems would
be my problems, for I believe that is the right attitude for a member of this house to take if he desires to serve his constituents.
This particular miner, desiring to be transferred back to his previous locality, which he calls home, refused, it is claimed, to take a medical examination by the doctors prescribed by the selective service board, preferring, if he had to undergo an examination, to go to his own union doctor in his home town. By the way, he had already been medically examined by his own doctor before he went to the coast. Because he did not submit to examination by the doctors prescribed by the selective service officials, he found, upon returning to his previous employment, that he would not receive his travelling expenses. I took the matter up with the department. I believe the deputy minister handled it; and the reply was, in effect, that because he did not go to the doctor whom the selective service board chose for him he could not get his expenses. I should like to know from the minister if that is the final word on the case. If it is, I suppose that all I can do is to launch a protest. I recognize, of course, that a man cannot do just whatever he wants. I know the minister desires that there shall be a certain amount of freedom, and of course the Department of Labour and the selective service officials could not permit everybody to do as he chose; if they did, they might as well not be there. But I want to ask the minister if there is no hope of this man getting his expenses. He transferred his family; in fact he had to sell his furniture to obtain the money to move, and since he is not able to go into the mine as regularly as some others, his earnings are appreciably less. The result is that he is hard pressed.
While I am on this subject, Mr. Chairman, I may point out to the committee that this particular item of a quarter of a million dollars and the previous item: "General labour transference in war labours and agriculture"-I fancy some coal miners may be included in that item-amount to $500,000. Here is a total of three-quarters of a million dollars for expenses of moving people around. Having that in mind, I do not think the government should be too miserly in investigating a man's expenses just because he does not meet every tiny detail demanded by some imperious selective service official.
I should like to say another word, because I have been waiting for this item. I have not discovered the subject in any of the other items. I refer now to coal miners' wages. We recall that last fall the coal miners went on strike because they did not .feel they had been getting a high enough wage in comparison with their work. I believe that work is highly
War Appropriation-Labour

specialized. It takes a great deal of time to train a coal miner. His work is extremely hazardous. Believing that they did not receive sufficient pay they went on strike. We all know what happened. They received a rise in pay and this was passed on to the public. I am not going to disagree with that. I recognize that in the coal mining industry, particularly in my constituency, as I have said many times before, they have been running on a shoe-string for a good many years. Just because the operator may have a nice big automobile it does not mean that he is a millionaire. I do not blame the government for passing on the rise in pay to the consumer of coal. May I point out that during that campaign a good deal of advertising went on, and some of the advertisements attempted to show that coal miners were excellently paid men. Those advertisements did not give the entire picture. I should like to give a little picture that most people do not see.
Here is the pay-sheet of a coal miner. I have a whole raft of them here. While this man earned $78.99 in two weeks which may sound to some people to be a fair wage, there were certain deductions. I shall read some of those deductions:
Cardox	 $ 7 70
Fines	 25
Wash house	 50
Lamps	 79
Doctor	
6	00Special assessment	(burial fund)... 1	00Check weighman	
97Union	
2	50Bus	
6	00Community chest	
39War savings	certificates	
2	00Unemployment insurance	
72Tax	
12	81Workmen's compensation board....	09
That is a total of $41.72. Therefore the coal miner actually received $37.27 for his two weeks' work. Here is another one. I shall not read it all. His pay was supposed to be $45.51 for the two weeks. But he had deductions to the amount of $37.90, which left him only $13.02.


Mr. GERSHAW:: How much did the doctor get out of the second one?


Ernest George Hansell: I do not believe that it is-


Frederick William Gershaw: The amount of $6 for the doctor in two weeks seems very high.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know what it comprises. I do not think it would mean that the doctor was paid that amount for visits ;o the coal miner. I think it is paid into a fund and the doctor is paid a certain salary.
Here is the case of another man who is supposed to have earned $66.76 in the two weeks, but by the time all the deductions
[Mr. Hansell.l
were taken off he actually received $32.50. I have a lot of them here, but I shall give the committee only one more. The total credit for this man's work amounts to $67.80; but after the deductions were taken off, which amounted to $40.49 there was a balance left of $27.31. Therefore the coal miner receives much less than the public thinks he does. I should like to put these on Hansard. I want the committee to recognize this because I believe we have a case for these coal miners. As I said, this is highly specialized work. It is dangerous, hazardous and very hard work. It is not very healthy work. The result is that very often these men become, shall we say, burnt out before they are able to apply for old age pensions.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the minister's attention. It does not come under the minister's department, but I mention it because I want him to try to influence the Minister of Finance along this line in his next budget. I refer to the present system of taxation, which penalizes the man who wants to produce more. We had the matter discussed at the last session. It was brought out by one or two able speakers, including my friend, the hon. member for Bow River. I think it was satisfactorily shown that the coal miner could earn up to a certain amount, and because his wage then comes into a certain bracket he is subject to a higher income tax, which means that when he earns over and above that amount he is working for very little. This has caused some absenteeism in the coal mines. I think if you approach it from the common-sense angle, the more a man produces-for, after all, during time of war it is production we need-the more he should get, or there should be some arrangement whereby, if he had any time that is considered to be overtime, he should not pay tax on that overtime. Some arrangement could be made whereby the desire on the part of the coal miner to produce a little more would not mean that he is to be penalized, because he goes to a higher bracket and is subject to higher taxation. I leave that thought with the minister. I think we all feel that as far as he is concerned he wants to do the proper thing for the workingman. Here is something that he can do if he and his government can influence the Minister of Finance to make some readjustment in that respect. I believe that the minister has wrestled with this thing before, and I did hear some inkling that he had some policy which he might propose in this respect, but it did not come to fruition. Perhaps what I heard was only a rumour. I wish that he would remedy that situation.

War Appropriation-Labour
May I mention one other matter which I think is vital to an item of this kind? The other day the Minister of Munitions and Supply made a statement to the house to the effect that it was the intention of the government to set up a royal commission on coal. The other day an hon. member asked when this commission would be set up, and the minister replied that some difficulty had been encountered in getting suitable men to sit on it. When the minister announced that the commission was to be appointed I wondered, though I do not suppose this is very much in point, why the announcement should be made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I have been in this house now for well on to ten years, during which time I have been interested in the subject of coal. I have always understood that the actual mines came under the Minister of Mines and Resources; of course, we all know that the labour situation and labour legislation come under the Minister of Labour, and if it is a matter of selling coal, particularly to other countries, that comes under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I was wondering where the Minister of Munitions and Supply came in, though I do not suppose it makes very much difference. I do not know if the minister stated the complete terms of the reference to this commission, but I hope there will be enough coordination between the various departments of government, so that when the commission is set up to determine a national fuel policy for Canada it will take into account the question of labour, the coal miner, the man who digs the coal from the ground, because, after all, in my opinion that is the most important phase of the coal mining industry. I should like to suggest that a coal miner should be on that commission, and when I say a coal miner I mean a man who can really represent the labourer who goes underground and gets out the coal, a man who understands the problems of the coal miners, so that whatever coal policy is decided upon will not leave the miner holding the bag and feeling that he does not get what he is worth, for eventually that feeling will cause dissatisfaction and the first thing we know we shall have strikes on our hands.
This is not my yearly speech on the coal mining industry, but I thought I might offer these few observations in passing and bring these matters to the attention of the minister. Perhaps at some future time I shall speak more elaborately on the coal mining industry. Would the minister just answer my question in respect to the Moutegani case? Is this case closed as far as he is concerned? Is there no
hope for that man and others who may be in a similar position in regard to getting their transportation?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have knowledge of that case. I say to my hon. friend that I think we were as reasonable as we possibly could be in these regulations. They were laid down by order in council for the guidance of those who were responsible for carrying them out. This man apparently went out of his way not to comply with the regulations; I believe that was the position when I last dealt with the case. I should be glad to have another look at it and see if anything can be done for this man, but I could not go any farther than that.


Ernest George Hansell: I appreciate that.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend mentioned the coal commission. The war emergency coal production board comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Munitions and Supply; that has to do with the production of coal, and that is why the Minister of Munitions and Supply made the announcement to which my. hon. friend referred. If I remember correctly, the minister said that the terms of the reference were being studied and that in the not very distant future he hoped to be able to announce the personnel of the commission.


Ernest George Hansell: Would the minister say that he will urge the appointment to this commission of a coal miner, or someone representing the coal miners?


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, absolutely; my hon. friend may rest assured of that.


Clarence Gillis: I wish to compliment the hon. member for Macleod upon his presentation of the case. He is a man of the cloth, and if more such men took the interest in these matters that he has shown, the welfare of the miners might be better looked after. I do not understand the deductions he mentioned, though; they are far beyond the realm of anything sensible, to my mind, but since I am not familiar with them I am not going to comment upon them. I have no intention of making a speech on the subject of coal, because I fully realize that it does not come under this item.


Ernest George Hansell: Just to keep the record straight, I hope the hon. member means the deductions on these pay slips and not the deductions I made in my argument.


Clarence Gillis: That is quite right; I meant the deductions on the pay slips.
I was glad to see the Department of Munitions and Supply take over the matter of coal. It had remained stagnant under the Department of Mines and Resources for
War Appropriation-Labour

seventy-five years, and I was glad to see it put where it might be viewed with a new perspective.
I wish to make two points bearing specifically on these estimates. The first has to do with the matter of transferring a miner from some other essential industry back to coal mining. A few nights ago I cited a case of this kind in a general way. I think some of the government's under-officials are getting the thing badly mixed up. I mentioned the case of an ex-coal miner working in Windsor *who was called in and routed out to Alberta, then sent from Alberta back to Nova Scotia. In the regulations, as the minister has said, definite rules are laid down in regard to matters, of transportation; but the time this man lost in transit also should be taken into consideration. That has not been done in this case. This man was rejected for underground work by the medical board in Nova Scotia; now he is back in Windsor working at the Ford plant, whence he started. This is not a new case; it has been in the slings and a matter of negotiation with the department for a year. This man figures that in the shuffle he lost approximately $800; his family are still in Nova Scotia while he is living in Windsor, which is a double expense. However, the deplorable feature of the whole thing is that when the matter was finally sent back to Alberta, Windsor and Nova Scotia, as the department ruled it had to be, for a decision by the offices through which that man was routed around, as to whether that expense was legitimate or otherwise, the decision reached by the Windsor office, by the man who uprooted this workman in the first place, was that he was not obliged to make the shift, that he came in and volunteered to go back to coal mining, and that as far as the official in Windsor was concerned this man should receive no recompense for the time lost and the extra expense incurred. The man himself, the worker, submits a declaration to the effect that he was called in. And we know he must have been called in, because under the regulations that is the procedure.
The matter is now in the hands of the Department of Labour, and I trust that the minister will stick to the regulations, when he is deciding as to whether that man should be reimbursed for the time he lost in being shifted from one part of the country to the other, and that he is able to take his family back to Windsor, whence they were uprooted.
The second point I would bring to the minister's attention concerns the soldier who was released from the service and routed back to coal mining. Under the regulations that

soldier-miner was granted $15 as a clothing allowance. Many of them coming out of the service did not know they were entitled to that $15. They purchased clothing and went to work. I took the matter up with the deputy minister, and he saw that it was corrected, in so far as he was able. He advised me that the treasury branch of the department were notified to see that those who had come out under the regulation were granted that $15, as per instructions.
That happened about a month ago. A large number of men have been affected along this line, particularly men in the mining industry of Nova Scotia. I had a letter only to-day from a district president of an organization advising me that they had checked on selective service offices in that district, and that the selective service officials there know nothing about the instructions sent out by the deputy minister to take care of that situation. There seems to be some laxity.
Let it be understood that I am not quarrelling with the selective service set-up in Nova Scotia. It has been my experience that it is working efficiently and well. I have visited the centre at Moncton, and most of the offices in the maritimes. But there is something wrong upstairs, right here. Those instructions do not get through to the officials in Nova Scotia. Had they got through, the matter would have been looked into. This is a sore spot, and there has been a good deal of controversy over it. This matter is all mixed up, and I hope that the minister will make a check and see that it is taken care of.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am familiar with the McKay case. It is a lengthy matter, and if my hon. friend would like to have a look at it to-morrow or next week, he may do so.


Clarence Gillis: I have read it so often I know it by heart.


Humphrey Mitchell: And I have read it, notwithstanding the reading I have to do. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe I indicated to my hon. friend that the other matter is receiving consideration, and he may rest assured that where the claims are in order they will probably be paid.


Mr. WOOD:: I would direct the attention of the committee to the administration of selective service in local offices. I must say, however, that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South when he says that many of the regulations made here in Ottawa do not get through to the local offices. I am inclined to take the view that it would be much better

War Appropriation-Labour
if there were a little more local autonomy in connection with applying some of the regulations.
As the hon. member has said, in the main, selective service is doing a very good job. I was pleased to hear the hon. member say that, and on that point I can agree with him.


Clarence Gillis: I said that was so in Nova
Scotia.


George Ernest Wood: Well, what is characteristic of Nova Scotia might very well apply to Canada, because the same regulations go out to each locality. Each locality has a local situation, and those who happen to administer that local situation are probably in a better position to apply the rules than those who would make a blanket ruling here in Ottawa.
In war time, regulations have to be made, and they have to be applied universally. I sometimes think, however, that a certain leniency should be extended to local offices. My attention was called recently to the case of a farmer who sold his farm last fall. He had been suffering from an impairment of health. As hon. members must know, this job of farming is not meant for a physical weakling. The health of the man in question had been impaired to the extent that he could not farm successfully, but he was still able to contribute in other walks of life which require the expenditure of less energy and physical effort. This man went to the city and worked for a firm which was servicing farmers' products. Only the other day he got notice that because of the freezing order with respect to farms he would have to go back to agriculture. This man had moved to the city, and had taken his family with him. He had been a farmer, and had never worked for any other farmer, having always worked for himself. It seems to me that while we should have as many men as possible back on the farms, yet the man who has served his day in producing food at reasonable prices, even for the coal miners, for a period of years, should not be treated in that way. He had produced food at reasonably cheap prices, and had produced purchasing power of which the hon. member for Macleod has been speaking. Yet this man was asked to go back to the farm and accept $2 a day less than he had been receiving in the city.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member is speaking with respect to selective service. I would point out that that item has been passed.


George Ernest Wood: Perhaps what I am saying should have been said before, but the same principle applies. Both the hon. member for
Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Macleod emphasized the difficulties in their particular walks of life, and I thought it only fair to draw attention to the fact that there have been farmers who have gone from the farms. Whether they went to the coal-mining industry, or to other industry, the principle remains the same.
The point I make is that the department should give a little more leniency to the local offices, because they can treat local cases. I have seen men with tears in their eyes when they have been ordered to transfer. Those transfers meant that they had to uproot their families. I believe selective service could give even greater help if it were permitted to give a little more consideration to particular cases.
I am not speaking critically, because I believe selective service has done a wonderful job. Canada's war record could not have been as good, had there not been some regimentation of industry. Despite the fact that our hon. friends across the way refer to a manpower muddle, I do not think it has been muddled, because our people have been able to give the greatest contribution per capita of any people in the united nations. But, after all, there is nothing so good but what it might be even better, and I would ask the minister to give consideration to the point I have raised.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I should like to support the representations made by the hon. member for Macleod and the hon. member for Cape Breton South with respect to the administration of this vote. There are two coal fields in my riding, one at Springhill and the other at River Hebert-Joggins. All things being considered, the production from these fields since the beginning of the war has been gratifying. However, I was disappointed that the production in Cumberland and in Nova Scotia last year was not larger than it was. I believe, if a clear indication had been given at the beginning of the war as to what was to be the duty of the miners, the production would have been much more satisfactory.
At the beginning of this war, as in the last war, the miners of Nova Scotia enlisted freely. They considered this to be their patriotic duty. Many skilled men left the mines to enlist and the output was reduced. There has been dissatisfaction and uncertainty because of the more recent order which took men from the services from the call-ups and from industry and placed them in the mines.
Some men have complained that while they were classified as coal miners they had never been down in a mine. They may have done some casual labour at the pithead or in handling coal, but they could not be classified as miners since they had no such training or
War Appropriation-Labour

experience. This is unfortunate from the point of view of morale of the miners generally. In many cases men have been taken from important work and sent to the mines against their wills. Coal mining is a hazardous employment requiring great skill and experience and the department is assuming serious responsibility when it takes men against their will and sends them into the mines.
The miners of Nova Scotia are anxious to serve where they can be of the most use to their country. That is why they enlisted so freely in the last war and in the present war. I should like the minister to give us a breakdown of this appropriation of $250,000 now being considered by the committee. I should like to know how the money is being distributed, how much is being spent in Nova Scotia and how much in other parts of Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: We have not a breakdown in front of us. I suppose the hon. member refers to Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?


Percy Chapman Black: Yes. How
much of this is appropriated to the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia, and under just what headings?


Humphrey Mitchell: This is for the new
fiscal year and we do not just know where the money will be spent. It is to cover transfers and the guarantee of a minimum weekly wage to those who are transferred, and to pay expenses connected therewith.


Percy Chapman Black: How was this same amount expended last year?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not that before
me, but I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend.


James Alexander Marshall: I do not intend to hold up the passing of this particular item. I had intended to say something on the sundry services item, but I shall leave that until the civil estimates of the minister are before us. I should like to suggest to the minister that a little more care be taken in setting out his estimates. These estimates are given on page 396 of Hansard of February 11 and they show a total appropriation for 1943-44 of $21,558,192. According to the statement in Hansard it would appear that the estimates this year were increased by $2,450,000, whereas the statement submitted by the minister shows a decrease of $283,011.
If the minister will check the statement which was given to us a few days ago he will find that no fewer than seven items do not correspond with what is to be found in Han-

sard. For instance, at the top of page 2 of the statement we find an item covering stabilization of longshore labour at Halifax. No amount is shown in Hansard, while an amount of $600,000 is shown on the white sheet. Item 13 provides for assistance to the provinces in recruiting, transporting and placing labourers on farms. A statement in Hansard shows an amount of $250,000, whereas the white sheet shows $920,000. Item 15 covers the transfer of ex-coal mine workers back to the industry. Nothing at all is shown in Hansard, but an amount of $250,000 is shown on the white sheet. There may be an explanation for this and, if so, I should like to have it before the estimates are passed. There may be two or three items included under sundry services, but I shall leave a discussion of those until the civil estimates are up later on.


Humphrey Mitchell: Since the items were
drafted in the department there have been some changes made by the treasury board. I have not been able to put my hands on the Hansard to which my hon. friend referred. He says that nothing is shown to cover the transfer of ex-coal mine workers, but I think he will find that an amount of $250,000 is shown.


James Alexander Marshall: Possibly the minister is looking at the 1944-45 column.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is right.


James Alexander Marshall: I am talking about the estimates of last year. According to Hansard this year the minister is asking for an increase of $250,000. In reality there is a decrease of $283,000 in the estimates. To me that does not show a true picture.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am informed that we did not use all the money that was made available to us a year ago and that it was turned back to other departments which had overspent their estimates.


James Alexander Marshall: That is not the answer, because these are only estimates; they are not actual expenditures. It is a different thing to show estimates and to show actual expenditures.


Percy Chapman Black: I would ask the minister, in connection with this item of $250,000, how many men were drawn from the armed services and put back in the mines of Nova Scotia during the last fiscal year. Also how many were taken from other industries and put back in the mines of Nova Scotia, and how many, if any, were taken from the farms and put in the mines? I should also like to know how many men who were called up under the National Resources Mobilization

War Appropriation-Labour
Act for military service, were assigned to the mines, work in the mines, being given priority over the military service they would otherwise have undertaken.


Humphrey Mitchell: We have not the figures broken down in that form, but the number of ex-coal miners returned from the armed services to the coal mines to March 15, 1944, was 2,144; the number of ex-coal miner workers returned to the mines under P.C. 4092 to March 15, was 2,276; the number of persons directed to mines under P.C. 4861 and P.C. 6077 to March 15 was 485.


Percy Chapman Black: Are those figures for Nova Scotia mines?


Humphrey Mitchell: We have not the figures broken down by provinces. I would be glad to -get that for my hon. friend.
The net result was this: Number of coal mine workers on payrolls June 1, 1943 was 24,864, and at March 15, 1944 was 27,816, an increase of 2,952 workers, or 12 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sundry services, $179,805.
Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Chairman, we took a long while on item 12 and then items 13 and 14 were passed so quickly I did not have an opportunity to ask a question. May I be permitted to revert back to item 13?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Ask the question on this last item for sundry services.


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister state what amount of assistance was given to each province in farm recruiting, and what was the nature of the services performed, and the amount paid for transportation?


Humphrey Mitchell: Here is a summary of expenditures under "assistance to provinces in recruiting, transporting and placing labourers on farms" to March 31, 1944.
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	 $ 3,626 17
Prince Edward Island	
2,030	67Quebec	
8,982	63Ontario	
130,970	88Manitoba	
20,187	31Saskatchewan	
78,314	37Alberta	
12,613	89British Columbia	
Transportation Of farm workers
(general)	 181,320	70
Total	 $438,046 62


Ernest Edward Perley: How many were placed on the farm in Saskatchewan under this assistance?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not the information under my hand, but I could get it for my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have been looking over the items to find the appropriate one on which to ask a question with reference to labour-management production committees.


Humphrey Mitchell: That comes under this item.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure that the minister will agree with me that the most satsifactory kind of labour-management arrangement is that which is effected by collective bargaining. Yet there are cases where collective bargaining is not in effect and where the next best thing is to have a labour-mangement production committee. Would the minister make a brief statement as to the activities of his department in encouraging these committees and as to what success he has had? He might also tell us whether the Department of Labour maintains any liaison with other departments of government to encourage government-owned enterprises and government controllers to adopt this principle.


Humphrey Mitchell: Speaking from memory, I believe a committee was set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Goldenberg of the Department of Munitions and Supply. Mr. H. J. Carmichael, director of war production, is also a member of the committee; Mr. Percy Bengough, President of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; Mr. Pat Conroy, of the Canadian Congress of Labour, and Mr. J. A. Parent, representing the National Catholic Syndicates, are among the members of the advisory committee. That committee has this matter under its advisement. There are also permanent officials in the Department of Labour appointed since I have been minister, whose duty it is to foster the development of these committees. I agree with my hon. friend in the principle of labour-management committees, but the feeling even in the labour movement and among employers is not unanimous about such committees. Even in Great Britain they have not been set up by law; there is no compulsory cooperation. At the present time in the mines of Nova Scotia an attempt is being made through my department to establish these committees in conjunction with the employers and employees there. I tabled a return, I think it was last session, of the number of committees that were operating in the Dominion of Canada; there now are 160. My hon. friend can rest assured that as far as the Department of Labour and other departments of government, and the parent bodies of the labour organizations in this country, are concerned, they are moving with expedition in the direction to which my hon. friend referred.
War Appropriation-Labour


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say a further word in connection with the latter part of my question? Perhaps I can put the matter more clearly by bringing to the minister's attention a case with which I am familiar. I shall not give the name of the firm because I merely want to quote the circumstances as an example.
I know of a private firm which happens to be under the direction of a government controller. The firm has no collective agreement with its employees, although the employees have sought it. When they found that there was delay in arriving at a collective agreement, as a second best they made inquiries as to whether the management, namely the controller, would consider the setting up of a labour-management committee. To my knowledge, to date that has not been done in this particular firm. My reason for quoting that case is to ask the minister whether his department takes any particular pains to bring to the attention of government controllers the desirability of labour-management committees where collective agreements are not arrived at.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether my hon. friend is asking for information or wants to make a speech. I do not know the company. If my hon. friend would give me the name of the company I should be glad to look into the matter, but he can see the position I . am in. He has talked about somebody who wants one of these committees and somebody who does not want them. I should be glad if my hon. friend would give me the name of the organization, and I will look into the matter and see if there is an opportunity of establishing one of these committees, if there is agreement on both sides.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will give the minister the name of the company privately. My reason for not mentioning it here is that I wanted to be informed on a matter of policy and principle rather than to name a particular firm, at least for the present.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, May 8, 1944