1945-11-22

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax) presented the second report of the special committee on war expenditures and economies, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Richard (Ottawa East) be substituted for that of Mr. Gourd (Chap-leau), on the parliamentary restaurant committee.
That the name of Mr. Pearkes be substituted for that of Mr. Tustin on the standing committee on marine and fisheries.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, following representations that were made to the chief electoral officer by the

Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, and Doctor Carlyle King, of Regina, acting president of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, Saskatchewan section, it was deemed advisable to institute an inquiry under section 70 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, into some irregularities which were revealed at the recount proceedings in connection with polling station No. 50 of the electoral district of Melville at the dominion elections of June 11 last.
On August 31, 1945, the chief justice of the court of king's bench of the province of Saskatchewan was appointed, pursuant to the above mentioned statutory provisions, to act as commissioner on the proposed inquiry. The inquiry was opened at Melville on Monday, October 9 last, and the taking of the evidence of the various witnesses lasted four days, from October 9 to October 12 inclusive. The report of the commissioner reached the chief electoral officer on the 19th instant.
I draw to the attention of the house the following conclusions of the commissioner's reiport. The first of these appears on page 29 of the report and reads as follows:
There are other features also which have a bearing on this issue and will be emphasized later in this report, and which serve also to support the conclusion which I have reached, namely that there were 71 ballots marked for Mr. Gardiner at this poll, and twenty-seven ballots for Mr. Benson, and that this count truly expressed the will of the 98 electors who voted at that poll.
I further find that although 12 of the Gardiner ballots had subsequently been tampered with by some person before the date of the recount that person was not Peter Cherneski or anyone who took part in the conduct of the poll. I am glad to state, and feel bound to state in the light of the evidence, and in fairness to these men, that there is no evidence whatever to support such a charge, but on the contrary there is convincing evidence of their innocence.
The second conclusion, appears at pages 27 and 28 of the report, and reads as follows:
The conclusion which forces itself upon me, and which I have reached after a most careful consideration of both documentary and oral evidence, is that the 12 ballots in question originally marked and counted for Mr. Gardiner were extracted from the envelope in which they were placed, while in Mr. Hunt's office; that they were then marked lightly for Mr. Benson and the marks immediately partly erased; that the unscrupulous person who perpetrated the fraud did so not only in order to invalidate these ballots in the recount but that the whole poll with its majority for Mr. Gardiner of 44 votes, might be thrown out and the will of the electors defeated. And let it be said that, from the criminal's point of view it would have the much-desired effect of defeating an outstanding member of the government of Canada a,nd an outstanding leader of the Liberal party in western Canada.

Elections-Irregularities
The third conclusion appears at page 29 of the report, and reads as follows:
The commission of the inquiry calls upon me to inquire in particular . . whether any ballots were marked or defaced subsequent to their being deposited in the ballot boxes on polling day and, if so, to ascertain the person or persons responsible therefor."
I have at great length tried to answer that question, but if it be desirable that I should answer with brevity, my answer to the first part of the question is "yes, unquestionably," and as to the second part of the question, my answer is. "I have not been able to ascertain, and have not the slightest idea as to the identity of the person or persons responsible therefor."
Mr. Speaker, I now lay on the table of the house the commissioner's report of the Melville inquiry. This report was reecived by the chief electoral officer on the 19th instant.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I suppose at a time such as this, one who is concerned and who has reason to welcome the report should be most magnanimous with those who have been responsible for the necessity for making the report: But I think as a question of privilege, and in the light of the report made by the chief electoral officer, I should call attention to certain statements made reflecting upon my actions as a candidate in the election held on June 11 last, and questioning my right to sit as a member of this house.
On the night of the election my majority was reported to be 554. The official count was made on June 19, when it was reported that through correction of polls between the count on election night, and as a result of the soldier vote, the majority was reduced to 32. The CXJ.F. candidate, Mr. Benson, asked for a recount, and rumours were circulated that this majority could be wiped out through the fact that persons voted who had no right to vote. That recount was held beginning July 16, 1945.
During the recount no irregularities bearing upon the result of the election were discovered except at poll 50. I immediately asked that the chief electoral officer investigate and report. He has now reported, and a copy of his report has been tabled. This report is based upon the findings of Chief Justice Brown of the court of king's bench in Saskatchewan, who was appointed to investigate rumours being circulated to the effect that officials at poll 50 had tampered with the ballots on election day, possibly during the lunch hour when the poll was closed for an hour at the request of the C.C.F. scrutineer, in order that he might go home for lunch and bring his wife to vote. The finding of the judge is that no such tampering with the ballots took place, and that the poll officials were innocent of the charges.
Having listened to the representations of those who conducted the recount on their behalf, and having reviewed all the evidence gathered by an exhaustive search upon which to upset the election, under the Controverted Elections Act, the CbC.F. provincial executive held a meeting in Regina, after which an announcement was made in the Regina Leader of August 30, 1945, by Doctor Carlyle King, acting president. That announcement was as follows:
Since the recount the C.C.F. has been considering taking action under the Controverted Elections Act, as an investigation by the party suggested there was an irregularity in the conducting of the balloting at poll 50 in the riding.
Doctor King said further:
Although our investigations in recent weeks have brought to light many irregularities in the holding of the election on June 11, the legal loopholes in the Controverted Elections Act make it unwise for us to risk the thousands of dollars which an appeal under the act would cost.
He added that the C;C.F. eagerly awaits the chief electoral officer's promised inquiry into the conduct of the balloting at poll 50, and stated further:
At that inquiry we will be prepared to present evidence that will show that Mr. Gardiner has no right to the Melville seat.
Chief Justice Brown began his investigations under instructions from the chief electoral officer on October 9, 1945 and made his report November 17. The chief electoral officer made his report to-day. The finding is the reverse of what the C.C.F. claimed they would show. In my opinion the president of the C.C.F. should withdraw the entire charge, which of course in the light of Jhe evidence has been proven to be an untrue charge.
But as a matter of privilege what I desired to draw particularly to the attention of the house was this. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) is reported in the press of October 29 to have said at Hamilton on October 28:
Even as late as this summer there was dirty work at the polls in Saskatchewan. I maintain that Mr. Gardiner had no right to sit in the House of Commons. We did not have the money to carry it through, but it was proved that ballots had been tampered with.
I need hardly call attention to the impropriety of a member of this house making such a statement, even if it were eventually found to be true, at the very time an investigation concurred in by his party was being held. But since its claims have been found to reflect upon my opponents rather than upon me, the statement is doubly reprehensible.
The hon. member for Yorkton apparently felt he had stated the case a little strongly)
Elections-Irregularities

because when I was leaving the house on the evening of October 29 a page boy rushed to me in the corridor with a note. I read it when I reached my office. In the first place I wish to state that if he had desired to withdraw or correct anything appearing in the press he should have done so on the floor of the house publicly. But I do not wonder that he sent this message in the manner he did. It reads as follows:
October 29
Mr. Gardiner:
The Globe and Mail carries a very irresponsible report of my statement in Hamilton. I never said anything about fraud.
Legally and technically your seat in the house cannot be challenged. No statement of mine could have been construed otherwise.
Sincerely,	.
G. H. Castleden.
The only denial registered in this note is that he used the word "fraud". The report in the Globe and Mail does not state that the hon. member for Yorkton used the word "fraud". The heading reads: "Says Gardiner elected through ballot fraud." What was declared by the hon. member for Yorkton and other party members to have happened in Melville certainly would have constituted ballot fraud if it had occurred. If it had been found that twelve ballots originally marked for Benson had been removed from the envelope containing Benson's ballots, the cross marked opposite my name and the ballots deposited in the envelope containing my ballots, which was contended, I certainly should have considered that an attempt had been made to defraud the electors to my advantage, and should have felt called upon to resign my seat. [DOT]
The judge finds that such a thing did not and could not have happened under the circumstances. He finds that there was an attempt made to defraud the electors, and he actually uses the word "fraud". He states this was done by taking twelve ballots from the envelope containing the ballots marked for me, marking [DOT] an "X" opposite Benson's name, rubbing it off, and putting the ballots back in the envelope containing my ballots, from which they had been removed, in an effort to upset the whole poll, where I had a majority of forty-four, and thus elect my opponent at the recount. As a matter of fact that was asked for at the recount.
In my opinion the word "fraud" properly defines what the hon. member for Yorkton charged and properly describes what the judge reports some criminal attempted to do. He very definitely finds that this crime was not % 
committed by any of the officials at poll No. 50, but by some one who wished to injure me and, through me, the Liberal party.
The	hon. member	for	Yorkton has	notdenied	his statement	at	Hamilton; he	hasmerely	stated that "legally and technically"my seat in the house cannot be challenged. I would ask him publicly to withdraw the statement made at Hamilton and to admit that legally, technically, morally and in every way I am entitled to sit as a member of this house	representing	the	constituency	of
Melville.
I sat through the recount at Melville and helped check every ballot. I am sure I can say without any fear of contradiction by anyone who did likewise that all the parties were agreed that apart from poll No. 50 no criticism could be made of the conduct of the polls in that election. The highest possible praise is due those who took the soldiers' vote, even though I did not get a majority of their votes.
In view of the fact that there were only a few constituencies checked following that vote I think hon. members would expect me to say that I sat as one of those who were making the recount and we checked the ballots polled for the whole constituency. After they had been checked, there were only fourteen ballots that were questioned by anyone, and those fourteen were questioned only on the ground that the men who had cast the ballots had given their addresses as points outside the constituency. All but four of those points were so close to the boundaries of the constituency that it was apparent to everyone that those ten men possibly lived inside the seat but had post office addresses outside the constituency. That was found to be the case.
I want to say that it is to the credit of the officers who conducted the vote of the overseas men, and it is to the credit of the overseas men themselves, that although a vote could be cast over an area extending from that constituency east and west for thousands of miles, when the votes were brought back and recounted nothing could be found which was detrimental to those who had conducted that election in that particular way.
The judge has now found that even poll No. 50 was conducted in a manner which gave a correct expression of the intent of the voters. Therefore I think I am justified in saying that the whole election was conducted in a proper manner.
There was one question which was raised and which I think should be mentioned. It was contended at one stage that a sufficient number of Indians had voted to make it possible to

Elections-Irregularities
upset the election if their rotes were disallowed. In other words, it was contended) that those votes, along with some others, might have made a total of thirty-two, and if thirty-two Indian votes had been cast, then the election might be upset. This was to my personal knowledge investigated by both the Liberals and the C.C.E., and I presume they found what we found, namely first, that there were not enough Indian votes to change the results of the election, even if they had all been cast for me and been disallowed. Second, it was found that as many Indians were brought to the polls by C.C.F. workers as by Liberals. Third, these particular Indians are the wives of returhed men of the first great war, and have been voting with their husbands ever since the last war without objection, on [DOT] the part of anyone. I think that will be agreed to by everyone. I think if we denied them the vote it would be deeply resented by all their friends of every party. So the matter was dropped. In my opinion the elections act should be amended to give them the legal right to vote. These women in the west-I do not know about the east-have been, voting in both provincial and, federal elections. They come to the polls with their husbands, and to my knowledge no one has ever objected seriously to their voting. They did vote on this occasion, but there were not enough of them to make a difference in the election, no matter how they voted.
There were n.o other irregularities that were even rumoured, to my knowledge. Therefore, I submit that it was not a lack of funds but a lack of evidence to substantiate reckless, unscrupulous and untrue charges which caused the C.C.F. to decide not to take action under the Controverted Elections Act. If they wish to have the respect of reasonable people I think they should be chivalrous enough to say so I think the election was properly conducted, and while the majority was not as great as I should have liked to have it, I am sure that they have done sufficient to assure that it will be greater the next time.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, since my name has been connected with this matter, may I say that the word "fraud" used in the caption of the report by the Globe and Mail was never uttered by me in, my statement at Hamilton, nor was it an expression of my own opinion. It was not properly stated by the Globe and Mail. I have no intention of going around denying reports made by irresponsible editors when they do not report the truth.
With regard to the decision of the court, the decision has been handed down and we accept it.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I say just a word as the national president of the C.C.F.? I merely wish to say that I am glad the charges have not been proved. I am glad the report casts no reflection, upon the people of Melville or upon the minister.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that I cannot permit a debate on this question. The minister has made a statement and hon. members know it is not debatable. The minister raised a question of privilege, but I could not permit a debate.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister requested that- if there were people chivalrous enough in the C.C.F. they might do something, and I tried to do that. I want to say that I am glad that this matter has been cleared up, that the minister's name has been cleared and that he takes his seat in this house without question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have in my hand the report of the Globe and Mail. I am not satisfied with the statement made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Yorkton. What the Globe and Mail says in its lead is this:
Says Gardiner elected through ballot fraud.


George Hugh Castleden: I did not say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not say the hon. member said that. It goes on to say this:
Mr. Castleden, emphasizing the importance of having alert, experienced scrutineers for election time, declared-
Then follow some words in quotation marks, and it is what is in those quotation marks that I refer to when I say I should like the hon. member for Yorkton to State whether he used those words or not. If he did use those words, I should like him to withdraw them; if he did not, I should like him to state definitely that he did not.


George Hugh Castleden: I have already Stated that.


James Garfield Gardiner: These are the words in the quotation:
"Even as late as this summer there was dirty work at the polls in Saskatchewan. I maintain that Mr. Gardiner has no right to sit in the House of Commons. We did not have the money to carry it through, but it was proved that ballots had been tampered with."
Questions

That last statement is true now, but it was not true then. It has been proved that ballots were tampered with, but it has not been proved that those ballots were tampered with in my interest.. It is the very opposite. What I would like to know is whether the hon. member for Yorkton made that statement at all, and if he did make it I would ask him to withdraw it.


George Hugh Castleden: I will repeat what I said before. I did not make that statement, and I have no intention of withdrawing statements that I did not make.


James Garfield Gardiner: All I have to say is that it is the same statement that Doctor Carlyle King made in' an interview, and I will ask him to make a withdrawal.



UNITED NATIONS


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two copies in English_and two copies in French of the report on the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.
The United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Act, 1944, chapter 12, section 3, calls for an annual report to be presented to parliament. While the act requires the report only for the fiscal year 1944-45, it was felt that the report would be much more valuable if UNRRA operations and Canadian participation in them were brought up to the end of September, the last date for which figures were available.
In view of the shortness of the report, eight pages of text and five tables, and of its general interest to members of the house, I would suggest that it be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicatedi by an asterisk.)

Mr. FULTON:: 1.	Have the 'airfield and buildings at Kamloops, B.C., or any part thereof, been declared surplus, and has any recommendation been made with respect thereto by Crown Assets Allocation Corporation?
2.	If so, what recommendation has been made, and what action has followed or is contemplated?
3.	Has any action or recommendation, as set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2, as applicable, been taken or made with respect .to the air strip at Beaton, B.C.?


Mr. McILRAITH:: In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned.
1.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes.
2.	It was recommended that these facilities be transferred to the Department of Transport. This transfer is in process of being carried out. The municipality of Kamloops is in negotiation with the department for the use of these facilities by the municipality as a municipal airport and for other civic purposes.
3.	No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-&quot;SUITABLE
[Stage Direction]
employment"
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Have any of the regional advisory boards made any recommendations as to the interpretation of the term "suitable employment" in connection with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
2.	If so, when were such recommendations made, and what were they?
Mr. MITCHELL':
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) On April 15, 1944, the Ontario regional advisory board recommended that "suitable employment" be defined in the light of the existing emergency, as a large number of workers drawing unemployment insurance benefit were unwilling to accept employment offered.
(b) On April 12, 1944, the Pacific regional advisory board suggested that the interpretation of the words "suitable employment" be considered in the light of conditions that might arise after peace had been declared, and in relationship to national selective service requirements.
These recommendations were studied both in the regions and at Ottawa, and it was agreed that decisions must be made in the light of circumstances of individual cases, having in mind that claimants were protected by the appeal procedure of the courts of referees and the umpire.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-SERVICEMEN OR WAR WORKERS PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED
Mr. KNOWLES:: What action is now being taken by the various offices of the Unemployment Insurance by (a) a returned man previously employed; (b) a munitions or other war worker previously employed; (c) a returned man not previously employed; (d) a munitions or other war worker not previously employed?


Mr. MITCHELL:: (a) A returned man
previously employed: Contributions paid in respect of employment prior to enlistment are

Sea Cadets
taken into account, and if necessary he is permitted to make application for extension of the two-year period to four years, where the applicant has not completed ninety days in insurable employment in any pe'riod of twelve months subsequent to discharge.
(b)	All insured employment since July 1, 1941, is taken into consideration and the claimant must show that he has had not less than 180 days of insurable employment in the two years immediately preceding the date of his claim.
(c)	A returned man not previously employed must establish that he has had not less than ninety days in insurable employment in any period of twelve months subsequent to discharge.
(d)	The reply to question (b) above also applies in this case.


FIRST BATTALION, SASKATOON LIGHT INFANTRY
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has consideration been given to making a permanent unit out of the First Battalion, Saskatoon Light Infantry?
2.	If so, what decision has been arrived at?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	When was the prisoner of war camp in the Riding Mountains, Manitoba, constructed and equipped; how many buildings were built within the camp; of what dimensions and for what purpose?
2.	Were these buildings equipped with modern plumbing, electric lights and other electrical conveniences?
3.	What was the total cost of constructing and equipping said camp?
4.	Have these buildings and equipment or any part of them been sold? If so, at what price and who was the .purchaser?
5.	Were tenders called for and publicly advertised?


DEPARTMENTAL PAPERS SIMILAR TO &quot;VETERANS AFFAIRS&quot;
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	How many departments of the government publish a departmental paper similar to Veterans Affairs published by the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	What is the estimated cost per month of such publications?



WAR SERVICE GRANTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the War Service Grants Act, 1944, by incorporating in the measure the provisions of certain orders in council passed under the War Measures Act and by extending and clarifying in several other respects the application and operation of the act, as recommended and reported by the special committee on veterans affairs.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. 0. BREITHAUPT (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, this being navy week I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services whether consideration has been given, by his department to the transfer of a number of suitable surplus naval vessels to the Navy League of Canada for sea cadet training purposes.
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of this question. The transfer of surplus naval craft to the Navy League of Canada for the use of the sea cadets for training has been given considerable thought. A number of small craft such as sailing boats and harbour craft are made available for use by the sea cadets, but with respect to the heavier type of naval craft it has been felt advisable to keep these for the Royal Canadian Naval divisions, where they would be available for training purposes, not only for sea cadets but also for the naval reserve forces. I understand that these larger craft are also made available for the sea cadet camps which are in operation during the summer and provision is also made whereby a number of these cadets are taken out for training cruises on fairly large training vessels in the great lakes and at other points. I have no doubt that that practice will be continued.

British Import Licences



BRITISH IMPORT LICENCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on what Premier Attlee said when he was here on Monday, namely, that it was not true that His Majesty's government in Great Britain had told the Canadian government that Canada could do business with the United Kingdom and the sterling area only if they erected plants there. I would ask what information the Department of Trade and Commerce has in regard to the United Kingdom refusing to grant import licences to ship Canadian goods to the United Kingdom.


James Horace King: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This is a very urgent question, of which I have already given notice to the minister.


James Horace King: Order. I think it is one of those questions which should be put on the order paper It calls for a lengthy reply.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is an urgent matter, Mr. Speaker, affecting the trade of the whole of Canada.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. About three weeks ago he stated that some provision would be made for. the transportation to Canada of the wives and families of soldiers who have already returned. May I ask what, if anything, has been done in that connection?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I said on my estimates. There is no additional shipping yet available for the purpose of bringing the wives and families of the men home. A certain limited number of wives are being brought back each month, but these are only the urgent compassionate cases.



WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, November 21, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain

sums of money for the carrying out of measures deemed necessary or advisable in consequence of the war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member for Edmonton East.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The hon. member for Kootenay West.


William Ross Macdonald: I recall that the hon. member for Kootenay West was speaking when the committee rose last night. I would point out that in committee an hon. member does not adjourn the debate. If he speaks again he is making a second speech. I do not think it would be in keeping with the wish of the committee to allow him to speak another forty minutes, but he had about ten minutes of his forty to go last night when the committee rose. I think that if the hon. member for Kootenay West speaks now he should not speak for more than ten minutes.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I shall not occupy more than a few minutes, Mr. Chairman. I was merely going to make a few remarks by way of proposals to the government as aids to a solution of the Japanese question: I assure you I shall not detain the committee long.
First, send back all Japanese of proven disloyalty as soon as possible to Japan. We do not for one minute defend any person who has been disloyal to this country.
Second, in connection with this question of repatriation-and I do hope the minister will give serious consideration to this-that a tribunal be appointed, including at least one representative of the Christian churches, with a thorough knowledge of Japanese, to consider applications for a change of decision in connection with declarations formerly made in the matter of repatriation. I ask the minister, I almost plead with him, to do that, because while I freely admit that there was no coercion in the accepted sense of the word, these declarations were signed under circumstances which were certainly not normal, and I believe these people's cases should be reviewed in the manner I suggest.
Third, while I know that this question of enemy alien property does not come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour, I ask him to use his good influence and the knowledge he has of this situation to promote an immediate iinvestigation of the assets disposed of through the custodian of enemy alien property, and complete restitution in respect of all injustices proven in this connection. I may say that there are thousands of citizens in

British Columbia of all political parties who believe that great injustice has been done in this matter.
Fourth, I would suggest it would be good policy for the Department of Labour and this government to give widespread publicity to the part which people of Japanese origin have played in the war effort in this country, including the purchase of victory bonds, subscriptions to the Red Cross, vital work in the lumber industry-the minister has mentioned the sugar beet industry-and enlistments in the Canadian army.
Fifth, I would suggest that the minister remove a frequent cause of opposition to these oriental groups in this country by seeing that legislation is passed at the first opportunity which will assure fair employment practices throughout this dominion.
Sixth, I suggest that the minister enlist the support of organizations and people throughout this country in educational campaigns to develop a high appreciation and understanding of this important problem, one of the many problems which have to be solved if democracy is to function in this country.
Before concluding, I wish to pay a tribute to the churches of all faiths and to a wide section of the press for the splendid stand they have taken against racial discrimination-in brief, for the stand they have taken against the very seeds of nazism.
These suggestions, Mr. Chairman, I put forward as suggestions to be given effect to by the government; but every Canadian has a duty to perform in this connection, and it is to combat racialism with all his heart, with all his mind, and with all his strength, because I am quite sure that the flower of democracy cannot come to fruition so long as this evil, what I would term this syphilis of the ;spirit, is destroyed and no longer exists in this country.


Mr. ASHBY:: Mr. Chairman, in regard to this Japanese question I can only give my own experiences. No sooner was war declared than we as farmers were asked to produce to capacity. Food was needed1, and we had no help with which to produce food. The only help that I could see available were Japanese who were then in, I assume, concentration and working camps, or being transported from British Columbia to various parts of Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say to my hon. friend that there are comparatively few in concentration camps; if I am correctly informed, at the moment there are about four hundred. I would not like it to go abroad* that all the 47696-152i
Demobilization-Labour
Japanese in this country are in concentration camps. I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: Yes; I too would want that clearly understood. I made every effort to obtain Japanese, and with considerable expense and trouble I finally obtained one, who -was recommended to me, to work on the farm. He was a married man with several children. We provided him with a cottage and everything which should be provided on a good ' farm. It was not very long, however, before this man in my presence pointed to our own training planes flying overhead and said, "Japanese better." I heard his children in our own yard singing "Hong Kong Singapore, Hong Kong Singapore." This man came to me in my own home and1 told me that while he was in the camp at Jasper these Japanese had secretly manufactured knives, some of them long, thin, slender knives, from bits of saws and* so on, so that, as far as I understood him, practically all of them were armed. I could mention many other instances, but I will not take up the time of the committee. At any rate, this man was certainly not interested in Canada or in producing food. I thought however that if he had another Japanese as a companion he might settle down and be of value to us. I was approached*- I did not take the initiative-by a Japanese young lady who was going to the university of ALberta. She told me that her father, an expert poultryman and market gardener, was anxious to come to Alberta and get on a farm, that he did not like it where he was, and if I would provide him with a cottage- I had three empty cottages on the farm-he would come there with his wife and his nineteen-year-old son and together they would take over the poultry and* gardening end of the farm and* help in the production of foodstuffs generally.	.
I went to considerable trouble and finally brought this family to my farm; personally hauled all their belongings to the farm, and provided them with a cottage. I settled them. What happened? This nineteen-year-old boy disappeared. He was a husky lad, too, for he had been brought up in Canada. I was left alone without any help. I called my own son, who is with me to-day and who is listening to me. I took him out of school to go and work on* the farm to take the place of that man, because our other man had left to join the armed forces. Yes, I took my own son out of school, and lie has never been able to return; he has worked on that farm and produced for all he was worth, and for the first time since 1938 is this boy having a
Demobilization-Labour

holiday. He has worked every day, Sundays and Christmas day included, serving his country.
And where was this nineteen-year-old Japanese boy? I did not know. I asked his father, and he made certain gestures indicating that he did not know. Finally I got on the boy's track and I discovered that he was living with his sisters in the city of Edmonton, attending high school there, though that had been refused my own daughter because we did not live in that particular district. My own daughter had to go to Leduc, about ten miles south; yet here was this Japanese boy actually going to school in Edmonlton, while my own son, who should have been in school, was working on the farm. Did I receive help from these Japanese? Not at all. My own son was appealed to by these Japanese on Sundays to help them when the snow came to get their, wood in so that they could be kept warm. They did not even go into the bush to obtain fuel when they had an opportunity 'before the snow came.
I do not need to spend any more time on that. I will not attack the Minister of Labour, and I hope that I shall not embarrass him in any way, because he has his hands full of labour troubles. His road is chosen for him by the government, and I know it is a hard one to travel, twisting and turning here and there with mud holes all over the place. That is why this old jalopy is stuck now with this strike at the Ford plant.
What has happened? Here are men who have broken out of the pasture, as it were- broken out of the pen. What will you do about it? Let us take a walk out to my farm, because I have such strikes constantly if I am not on the job. To give you an illustration of how we common farmers would deal with such a problem, let us use our imaginations for a few moments. We will imagine we' are on my farm and the hogs have broken out of the pen. I am standing in the kitchen waiting for a couple of doughnuts to cool off, because my wife happens to be frying them, and looking through the window I see the hogs rooting in the kitchen garden. What would this parliament do under such circumstances? I am afraid it would debate the subject. It would1 make lengthy and perhaps brilliant speeches on nothing at all-because I have sat here for weeks biting my fingernails and wondering when we would get down to business. But what would I do under the circumstances? I would go to my wife and kiss her on the'cheek and she would stand back, place her hands on her hips, look me up and down, and say "Now, what do

you want?" And I would say, "My love, look out the window at nature's marvels", and then I would dodge the broom as she grabbed it and rushed out the back door taking the screen with her. The hogs would scatter in all directions; but where am I?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: In the kitchen eating
doughnuts.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: You will find me, sir, in the hog pen, sitting there on an upturned swill pail, my elbows on my knees, my face in my hands, trying to think like a hog. I say trying to think like a hog; and I want you to remember this, because a pig, if not influenced by unnatural conditions, always thinks right. In other words, the mind of animals, not polluted by man-made rules and regulations and all the rest of it, always thinks as nature compels it to think. These hogs broke out of the pen because I, who have taken upon myself supreme authority over them, as it were, have imposed conditions upon them that compel them to get out of that pen. It is therefore up to me to find out what it is that has driven these hogs out of the pen.
Now let us look at these- men. After I discovered what it was that the animals needed and wanted, I had to give them, of- course, those wants at the earliest possible moment so as to get them back into the pen. Let us take the workers at the Ford plant. What do they want? An increase in pay perhaps. I can assure them right now that they will never get it from the Ford plant.


Mr. BROWN:: Does the hon. member consider these workers pigs?


Patrick Harvey Ashby: I consider these workers
mentally far superior to many who imagine they are superior to them. I use that as an illustration. These men want certain results, and I was trying to illustrate what they want. If they are not influenced by agitators they can easily demonstrate what they want. I said before that the Ford1 plant cannot give increases in wages unless they pay lees for their raw materials; and if they do that the steel workers are going to strike. It is an utter impossibility for the Ford plant to pay less for their raw products. They cannot pay any less wages to their foremen, their managers or the managing directors and so on, because if they do, those men will just quit working for the firm and go elsewhere. They cannot cut down on the interest paid to those who have invested their savings and their earnings in this business, and from which they deserve a just reward. I do not think anyone is receiving too high a rate of interest on those investments. There is only one other way in which the Ford plant

Demobilization-Labour
can possibly1 obtain money with which to pay these men higher wages, and that it to increase the price of their products to the consumers. You andi I and all the rest of us are consumers. We would pay ourselves. It is very similar to this racket called "compulsory contributory unemployment insurance," which is nothing but a farce. For example, the worker pays one-third, the firm for which he works pays one-third and the government pay's one-third.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia) :: 
Patrick Harvey Ashby: I would say that if the Ford company had received $17,000,000 profit it would be a mighty good thing. I know that if they' made that profit they would immediately' erect another factory and therefore employ more men. That is their business, not mine. [DOT]
To go on with the compulsory contributory unemployment insurance that I was speaking of, the men pay one-third, the firm pays one-third and the government pays one-third. It is taken from them. They' have no option; they are forced to contribute this amount. Where does the firm get its third? It gets it by merely increasing the price to the consumers, and we as consumers have to pay that one-third also. Where does the government get its one-third? It taxes it out of our pockets, and we pay that third; therefore we pay it all.
These men desire something; they are working for something. They go to work in this factory, or in any factory, we will say, at the age of eighteen or twenty. They want to get a job; they want to earn a living. They are willing and anxious to get work to earn a living. Working is a means to an end. Therefore they go to work possibly on Monday morning, and they will work hour after hour all day on Monday. They will work again all day Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday and Friday, and by Saturday they are getting a little tired. But the next Monday they must go to work again. In other words they will work hour after hour, day after day, week after week, and month after month, for as long as five years. At the end of that time perhaps they may say, "Well, we can begin to live now,"-but no; they have to get to work again as soon as the little holiday is over. They start all over again and they work again year after year for another five years, or ten or more years. They will work until they are forty or forty-five years old, and still they cannot retire and
enjoy life-for that is what they want. That is why they work-to be able to enjoy life, to be able to live. Yet they must keep on working until they are forty-five years of age, until they are fifty, until they are fifty-five, until they are sixty, sixty-five, even up to seventy years of age, and then we give them a small pittance of $30 a month. Imagine!
What is the solution? Well, the first thing is to cut out all this taxation, abolish taxes on incomes of $5,000 a year and less. That would enable them to live a little bit of the time anyway. Next cut down gradually all taxation on all goods offered for sale, and when we have that abolished begin to pay a rightful dividend which will bring up the purchasing power of the people so that they may be able to purchase the goods that they produce in association.


Mr. McIVOR:: I have asked for a few minutes because I have something to say. First I would congratulate the minister, his deputy and his staff upon the work they have done during past years. I think I was the first or perhaps the only member who, when I occupied a seat on the other side, stood in my place and championed the cause of the minister because of his record as a workman and an executive helper. You cannot write to the Department of Labour to-day without getting an answer, whether you get what you ask foT or not. I hope that that will continue.
In my statement at that time I spoke of his character, and his record has been carried out by his statement when he said that it is necessary for labour and capital to walk the same road. That shows that he is getting pretty close to the programme of the Master Carpenter of Nazareth when he said:
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
I do not like strikes, but I know that in industry a strike is just as important as an operation on the human body. Sometimes disease gets into the human body and it is necessary for a specialist to come along and see that an operation is performed. But an operation on the human body always hurts, and it leaves a weakness afterwards. A strike is caused in industry when some disease creeps in and something gets wrong. I think a strike is absolutely necessary in order to clear away something that hurts the people who are operating that place.
I was in Winnipeg on Saturday and I found a strike of this type going on. I found the Free Press and the Tribune were trying to get out a paper but there was no advertising in it and therefore it was not paying. I went
Demobilization-Labour

into a big store and I wondered why it was that the people knew when there was a big sale on. The rush was just as large as ever. I asked somebody why it was, and he said, "Well, it comes over the radio." Therefore the papers are hurting themselves; the management are hurting themselves and the workers are hurting themselves because they are going to lose a good deal in that way. I think the workers must have the right to strike. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour why it is that some unions in Canada get along without striking and others are continually at it. Take the running trades. The late member for Kenora stood up in this house and said: "We can get along by collaborating, by discussing our problems with the officials." It is better for them to get along without a strike if they can do it, but sometimes a strike is necessary. I know I was sick at heart last night when I heard over the radio that the Ford) strike was not settled. I think it ought to- have been settled. I agree with the Minister of Reconstruction that while the men may have ma.de some mistakes and the leaders of labour have made some mistakes, yet tire Ford people and management themselves are more responsible. I can remember the first time when I owned a Ford car, and was mighty proud of it; because Henry Ford had fitted out a peace ship to go across the Atlantic to tell the German leaders and others that the peace of the world should be maintained. I would tell the descendants of Henry Ford to-day, from my place in the house, that before we can have peace outside we have to have peace at home, and' that they should get busy and settle their own differences with their own workers- because those workers are surely reasonable. I want a Ford car-yes; but I do not care whether I ride in it or not. I would just as soon have a baby Austin, any time.
How is the Minister of Reconstruction going to get on with his programme? How is he going to make a success of his plan for reconstruction if management and labour do not get together? During the last session the bankers' association were on the carpet. It was shown that the white-collared workers in the banks to-day are treated a little better than they were in years gone by, when a young man would start to work in a bank for $400 a year. It was known then, as it is known to-day, that a dollar earned in a bank will not buy any more boots or clothes than a dollar earned by driving a model-T Ford in the city of Ottawa.
The bankers have been doing considerably better, and that is a point which gives us some hope. But why is it that a banker must

spend long hours and not receive anything nearly the amount of pay received by, we will say, a paper maker? One receives $2 an hour, and the other does not receive much more than $2 or $3 a day. Why? It is because of organization. The white-collared workers should get busy and organize. I realize that some tribute must be paid to the bankers, because I have learned that when the young men have come back from the war, to the banks, their increases in wages have continued, just as if they had been working right along. While the banks are not paying what we think they should pay, we must give them their due.
Let me say one word about the Japanese. Perhaps it may be suggested that I have no right to speak on -this subject. But I have. The government has no right to tell British Columbia that it must take the Japanese and have them segregated there. British Columbia has no greater responsibility than any other province to supply homes to those who have come out from Japan, and their descendants. But Canadian citizenship is a sacred thing; whether a man be Japanese, Indian or Irish, his citizenship is his sacred right, and we must be careful how we handle it.
In the three minutes of my time remaining I shall speak only briefly about the union shop. My experience is that it works, and it would be in' the best interests of the Ford Motor company if they adopted the union-shop immediately. I am sure if -the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe were in his seat he would support me in what I am saying. Any company that has operated under this arrangement does not want to return to any other. The superintendent of the Great Lakes Pulp and Paper company, of which the hon. member is president, would have nothing but the union shop, because it does away with union activities in working hours, and with drives for membership. Men and management work happily together. We have in Fort William a concern in which the union shop Operates, and I have been told by the superintendent and manager of the plant that he would not go back to the old way.
The union shop makes contented workers; when a man is a member of a union he knows what lhe has to pay. The cure for the troubles between capital and labour to-day is not only collective bargaining, although it may help; the cure will be effected only when leaders and workmen adopt the rule laid down by the Master Workman of Galilee, that each Shall help the other to carry his burden.

Demobilization-Labour


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Fort William has said that Canadian citizenship is a sacred thing. I agree with that. But always remember this, that when this nation gives citizenship to an individual from another country, that citizenship carries with it certain obligations. Let that sink in.
I have said before in this chamber that you do not build a nation or an empire by sitting on the fence. It has been the courage of the people that has ma.de this country what it is, the courage of those who fought against the enemy in this and in the last war. I know the desperate position in which the British people found themselves in 1942. That was when we stood alone; that was when we needed friends, and the cooperation of persons who had taken o'ut citizenship in this country.
What do we find? What has been our record in the past? Up until the defeat of Japan the Japanese wanted to go back to their own country. As I said yesterday, this is a free country, and we took them at their word. But when the atomic bomb cropped up, and Japan was defeated, they were prepared to change their minds. That is the position in a nutshell.
I have no objection to sitting here for the next two or three weeks-but I am dreaming of a white Christmas. I know most hon. members are like myself, and that if they wished to do so they could condense their basic arguments into brief speeches. I have no right to stand in the way of criticism of my department, because the right to differ in -opinion is the basis of human freedom. But let us get on with the washing; let us make sure that my good western friend-and I see the hon. member for Cariboo smiling at me- -has an opportunity to get a seat on the train so that he may go home to see his wife and children.


Mr. GILLIS:: I do not rise at this time to criticize. When I speak in the house it is to . provoke thought on the part of those who have responsibilities, when I think they are slipping up. If I succeed in leaving some thought with them, I may do my share toward helping to correct conditions which perhaps are not handled as they should be.
On many occasions in this chamber I have said that in my view the Department of Labour was the most important department in the government during the process of fighting the war. Anyone who has watched the activities of that department must agree with me. The same is true in this time of reconversion.
If anyone cares, to look at the minister's estimates he will find there are twenty-two items, running into large sums of money and reaching into every aspect of the economy of our country. The job of taking servicemen out of the services, training them, finding employment for them and looking after them when they are unemployed is that of the Minister of Labour. I listened to his statement last night and I read it again to-day. It was a most informative statement. He gave many facts and figures. Sometimes figures may be misleading, and I am going to say a few words on that.
I am not going to talk about the Japanese question, because there are other hon. members more expert on that than I am. That matter is now in the hands of the Department of Labour; it is a government responsibility. We have expressed our opinion as to the rights of citizenship; our position is clear; the mechanics of working out the problem' is the responsibility of the government, and1 I am not going to delve into them.
I want to say just a few words on the question of union security. Last night the hon. member for Calgary West made an honest attempt to find a solution to conciliation and other problems. While I do not wholly a'gree with him, I do think that he tried honestly to offer us something. This question of union security is going to bother the Department of Labour more than any other question that will come before it in the next year or two, and an endeavour should be made now to find some means of answering it.
Many people talk very loosely about union security. Many of them have no conception of what they want when they refer to union security. I think the greatest difficulty facing many people is that of defining exactly what they want. But that has never bothered me very much. All the collective security that I want is a collective bargaining act in the province in which you are attempting to establish union security. That is the first thing that should be done. Second, if a majority of the workers are satisfied with a certain union the collective bargaining machinery in the province should * make it mandatory that there be a revocable check-off set up. I do not want to harness any one in an organization without the right of backing out if he so desires. Lf a union has a check-off on a volunatry basis, where the member places his card in the office with the right to pull out that card if he so desires, that is all the union security that I think is necessary. If an organization set up for the purpose of bargaining collectively with the employer justi-

Demobilization-Labour
fies its existence, if it is doing the kind of job it should do for its membership, it should have no fear of its membership leaving the organization. That is not too much to ask. I think that is all the machinery that is necessary.
My experience, and I think it is the experience of many others, over the past thirty years is that when you harness the membership of an organization so that they cannot back out if they so desire there is a tendency to create a dictatorship or bureaucracy. The men are anchored and they must stay whether they like it or not. It should be clearly understood that a revocable check-off is all that is necessary. Once that is set up, an organization should be able to hold on the basis of service to its membership. The mine" workers are pretty tough people. We have been unionized for the last thirty years. We have that kind of arrangement, and I know it works. There is no danger in union security if you have a proper trade union act in the province.
In dealing last night with the matter of conciliation the hon. member for Calgary West put his finger on the sore spot. You may have an unanimous decision of a conciliation board, but there is no way of enforcing it. Once a decision is given, you have nowhere to go. If it is acceptable to the union, it is fine; if it is not, you still have a dispute on your hands. He suggested the possibility of handing over the rights of a referee to supreme court judges to be selected by the Minister of Justice.
I know that there has to be some end to these things, but I also know that if the government enacts legislation that places the final, say in labour disputes in the hands of the judiciary, you will have an immediate uprising from one end of the country to the other. It would be looked upon as compulsory arbitration, because the decisions would be made from the legalistic rather than the economic point of view.


Humphrey Mitchell: It was tried in 1918.


Clarence Gillis: It was tried and the reaction was completely against it. In the first analysis we must set up proper labour legislation in each of our provinces. It must be done provincially, because the British North America Act prevents you from doing it nationally. If you have trade union acts such as you have in most of the provinces across this country, if the majority of your industrial workers are bargaining collectively with their employers, then I think you will eliminate the great majority of your disputes.
For example, in the mine workers' union an umpire is selected by the operating company and by the union. His salary is paid on a
(Mr. Gillis.l	.
fifty-fifty basis by the union and the company. They have difficulty sometimes in getting the proper man, but where disputes arise during the term of the contract-once your contract is signed a lot of your difficulties are over- they are referred to the referee. His job is to interpret the contract and take care of any disputes that arise.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Is that a permanent position, or is the hon. member referring to what we call an independent chairman w7ho is appointed for each dispute?


Clarence Gillis: No, he is a permanent
appointee.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We have not that. Our independent chairman is paid on a fifty-fifty basis, but I see there is a distinction.


Clarence Gillis: This is the permanent official, and he is paid on a fifty-fifty basis by the union and the coal company. He maintains an office and has a full-time job. He studies the contract, he meets with the people, and he knows the dispute pretty thoroughly. He is carefully selected, and his judgment is accepted. I have never known one of his judgments to be disputed by either side.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What would his salary be?


Clarence Gillis: Not so much-probably
around $3,500 a year. In that way most of the disputes are kept out of the field of conciliation. If we could establish collective bargaining acts provincially, if union agreements could be signed with the operators, if we could set up umpire machinery to interpret the terms of the agreements and handle the grievances as they arise, we would do much to keep disputes out of the national field.


Mr. MAYBANK:: How large an area does that scheme cover?


Clarence Gillis: It covers 12,000 miners.


Ralph Maybank: In one province?


Clarence Gillis: Partly New Brunswick, but mostly in Nova Scotia. It is all contingent upon the establishment of proper collective bargaining machinery.
The dominion-provincial conference is to take place pretty soon. The dominion proposals to the provinces in the field of collective bargaining assure us that this matter is on the agenda. I should like to leave this thought with the minister. We are going to have to do one of two things. We are in an age when working people realize that democracy in industry is necessary, and without the kind of machinery we have been talking about you have not industrial democracy. The thing

Demobilization-Labour
is all one-sided when the 'boss can sit in his office and dictate to you; that is dictatorship, not democracy. There will have to be a thorough understanding on this matter. Either something must be done in every province to provide collective bargaining legislation which is uniform, or the dominion government will have to ask the provinces to relinquish their rights in this field, and the national labour code must be expanded into collective bargaining legislation which will be uniform from one end of the dominion to the other.
When the McTague commission were taking the evidence upon which the present code is based the horn, member for Vancouver East and myself had the privilege of appearing before that commission and presenting a brief. When we were told that, the purpose was merely to establish a code under the War Measures Act, and that it would last only for the duration of the war, I told the chairman that I would not be very much interested in giving evidence. If it is only a makeshift, something which is to be thrown, overboard When the war is over, you are wasting your time and the time of the people who assemble this evidence and appear before the commission. If the British North America Act is in, the way, we can change it. Definitely it is a controversial problem. But if it was necessary to lay down a code during the war, we should have made a good job of it: we should have enacted a national labour code in agreement with the provinces which would have been working to-day.
The dominion-provincial conference should have a thorough understanding about this matter. We ini Nova Scotia are not so badly off as regards trade union legislation. But when the Minister of Labour for Nova Scotia was speaking to the McTague commission he definitely stated that he and the government he represented were quite prepared to have the subject dealt with nationally,. In order that a code which would establish uniformity across the country could be laid down they were prepared to relinquish their rights in that field in favour of the dominion government. I am told that it is on the agenda, and I hope that by the time the conference is over we shall have something worth while.


Mr. ROSE:: I should like to be clear on this point: are there any federal government proposals to the provincial governments? I understand there are none.


Clarence Gillis: Only last night I checked up
on the dominion proposals to the dominion-provincial conference, and collective bargaining is definitely included. They do not make any specific proposals, but the matter is on the
agenda and it will be discussed, and there is no doubt that some of the provinces will have something definite to say about it. I think all the evidence necessary to determine this question was assembled1 by the McTague commission. There should not be any guessing about it, because the general public, organized labour, anybody who had anything to say on the subject, went in and made presentations, and there is a comprehensive set-up available to-day.
Another thought. I should like to leave with the minister is this. He may say that this matter, comes under the Department of. Munitions and Supply. But these departments today are all interlocked!-finance, labour, munitions and supply, reconstruction. They all dovetail into this one problem, of employment and training, because there is a financial problem, a reconversion problem, and the problem of the minister in putting men to work. The finance department can,, employ them, the Minister of Reconstruction can throw out a few thousand people, but the Minister of Labour has to find work for them. So all the departments are tied together in this respect.
As the minister knows, the employment problem in Nova Scotia from one end of the province to the other is very serious. To-day a coal commission is sitting to examine into the problem. It may be a few months before it is in a position to report. The problem is a national one. If there is one industry in Canada about which the federal government is going to have to do something it is the coal industry. The right to the resources is, of course, in the hands of the province. But the federal government has been pouring millions of dollars into the industry, and continues to do it; otherwise it would collapse. When this royal commission reports, one of its most important duties will be to lay down a national fuel policy so that that resource will be utilized to its maximum, and the maximum return obtained from the industry for the money the government puts into it. But when [DOT] that commission makes its report it will not be in, a position to lay down a national fuel policy, because again you are up against provincial jurisdiction, and in checking over the dominion proposals to the dominion-provincial conference I find that that is not on the agenda. I suggest that, whoever may represent the dominion government at the conference, the question of a national fuel policy and the functions of this commission should be discussed, and if it is necessary for the federal government to act as a crutch for the rest of our natural life for the coal industry
Demobilization-Labour

of this province, if they have to finance and stand behind it, they should have a lot to say as to its management. You are not going to be able to say anything as to its management until such time as you have an understanding with the province on it. Personally I am convinced, and have been for some time, that it is a national industry which will have to be taken over sooner or later; because, looking at the figures of subsidies and so forth during the war period, it seems clear that any industry which has to be sustained from the public treasury to the extent to which the coal industry has been sustained should undergo, a certain amount of public supervision through the government. I leave that thought with the minister, because I believe the matter will have to be discussed at the dominiomprovineial conference.
Then there is the matter of employment. Figures are misleading, as I said a few minutes ago, and certainly they are misleading in the matter of employment. I had some considerable correspondence with the Minister of Munitions and Supply on this business; and you will find that even your selective service figures from the officers will mislead you. For example, one report I had, and I went to the office for it, showed that in the Sydney area there were 564 applications, whereas the number of vacancies listed was 693. That would lead one to believe that there were more jobs available in that community than there were applicants. But I say that is misleading because 493 of those vacancies were for first-class coal miners, and all the vacancies which could be filled by .local applicants numbered 71. The people listed for employment could do light work; they might work around the surface, they could go at datal work and around the mines. But that kind of employment was not available, and men physically and otherwise qualified as miners were not there.
The thought I should like to leave with the minister is based on a serious situation, which I checked up while I was home. I went to the coal company offices and I consulted with the selective service people in Sydney, who have a pretty efficient set-up. Nobody can knock selective service as far as I am concerned; it has done a pretty good job. I said that I would like to know what proportion of service personnel coming back who had previously been employed in the coal mines were prepared to go back to the mines. The figures were startling. Of 1,000 men discharged from the service, 82 per cent refused to go back to mining coal. Was it because they were lazy? No. The fact of the matter is that when a man spends 
four or five years in the service he does not come back to civilian life the way he went in. These men are not physicaly fit to go back into that type of employment. The department did have established in that area during the war something that would have overcome this difficulty to some extent. There is now a large number of young people who have not been employed in the mines but who want to go into the mines, and if the apprenticeship system which was set up during the war under the war emergency production order had been continued, it would have helped to solve the problem to some extent. The young men on discharge from the service could go and see their rehabilitation officer if they wanted to go back into the coal mines, and if that school for training apprentices were still in operation these boys could be trained for work at the coal face. There is no employment on datal wrnrk for them because they are not qualified, but in the short time the school was in operation 95 per cent of those who applied for training were sent to work on the coal face. That system was discontinued five or six months ago; none of these schools is now operating. They were doing a first-class job and would have served a useful function in the rehabilitation set-up. Then you would not have in one spot alone 493 vacancies for qualified coal miners that cannot be filled.
The service personnel coming out are not physically fit to go back to coal mining. But you could have been training these ^young fellows during the past few months and that would have overcome the difficulty to some extent. On two occasions I questioned the minister in the house about these schools, because I thought that this apprenticeship set-up in the coal mines was one of the best things the department had done. It elevated coal mining to the status of a trade and gave the young fellows going into the mine an opportunity to learn the trade under proper instructions. The rates they were paid in these schools were very fair. In addition the boys were paying their way through the coal they produced, which offset the cost of operating the schools. The system was run on a fifty-fifty basis between the government and the coal company, but as I said, it has been allowed to peter out. When I questioned the minister on two occasions as to whether the schools would be carried forward into the post-war period he assured me that so long as he was Minister of Labour and had anything to do with the operation of that department the schools would be continued and the apprenticeship system as applied underground in the mines would be carried on. It was

Demobilization-Labour
serving a useful function in training young fellows in the trade of coal-mining, and it would be a step in the right direction, I submit, to reestablish this system.
There is another thought I would like to leave with the minister with respect to unemployment, and he might check on this with the Minister of Finance. I heard the Minister of Finance say in the house on .two occasions when discussing the excess profits tax that the tax was being rebated to corporations for the definite purpose of creating a backlog of funds that would be useful in creating new *employment in the reconversion period. All through the war this tax has been rebated to corporations to the extent of twenty per cent, and last year's budget raised the rebate to forty per cent. That is going to run into a lot of money. Here is a case in point. Canada Car and Foundry operated in Amherst, .Nova Scotia, and they made a considerable amount of money during the war period. They were allowed this rebate of twenty per cent of the excess profits tax-and what happened? Immediately after the war was over, the plant was closed. What happens to the excess profits tax rebated to a company that closes out its plant immediately on the cessation of hostilities? What happens to that twenty per cent, now forty per cent? They made that money in that plant.


Ralph Maybank: But it was hot paid.


Clarence Gillis: It will be paid, and I say that there is a large backlog of money. The Minister of Labour is responsible for employment, and I submit that he has the right to ask the Minister of Finance to see that that money is used specifically for the purpose of creating new employment in the post-war period in that district. The Minister of Labour has a right to say that that money should be spent in the community in which it was earned, rather than be given to that particular operator to help him create some new industry elsewhere. He might buy that plate mill which the Minister of Reconstruction is selling in Sydney and start) a government operation there, and I can assure him that we shall be able to find a market for all his plate. I leave this thought with the minister, because this question is tied up with the providing of employment. If we are going to pay back millions of dollars in these rebates, we should see to it that the money is used for the purpose for which it was intended.
I want to say a few words on unemployment insurance from the angle of employment. I am not satisfied with the machinery that has been provided by the department to determine new employment and the discontinuing of unemployment insurance payments.
I have a case in point, with all the evidence before me, but I shall not go into it at length. The minister knows that I have checked the case of Lillian Bateman of Sydney, Nova Scotia. The details briefly are these: Previous wages, $80 a month; five months unemployed; directed to several employers who refused to take her; directed to a large firm to do window-dressing at $12 a week, something for which she had no aptitude or training. The work was not comparable, the wage was not comparable, and she had no training in that work. The determining factor seems to be the length of time you are unemployed.
I do not think it should be.
The unemployment insurance commission in the first instance turned down this girl's claim. She appealed to the board of referees. The board of referees in my opinion was a very competent body. It had a broad-minded lawyer on it. The Dominion Steel and Coal company also had their representative on it, and we had D. W. Morrison, ex-president of district 26 of the mineworkers, who has held that position for twenty odd years. So I aim sure that the case would be thoroughly ironed out by the board. The board ruled that the young lady should get her unemployment insurance. The commission appealed that ruling. Then the case went to a one-man judge, Mr. Lueien Cannon. He heard the case in Ottawa on May 21, 1945. I have read over the whole case. I am not going to put it on the record, but I absolutely disagree with the judge's finding. Moreover I think that that set-up is bad. I do not think that one man should be given the right to throw overboard the decision of a competent three-man board. And mind you, they are right in the community where the problem affects the people. But when you pass the matter along to the city of Ottawa, where most people live in a vacuum, having little touch with the ordinary things of life, and have one man make the decision, you cannot expect to have the question settled. I have read Mr. Cannon's decision and his reasons for it, and I do not think there is anything in the memorandum setting out his decision that justifies him in that decision. He based it on one consideration and one only, namely, that she had1 been unemployed a reasonable time and should: take other employment at $12 a week, at window-dressing, which is a technical occupation for which one must have training. She had none.
The minister and the deputy minister I know are interested in these matters, are sympathetic and realistic about them, and I think they should decide that this umpire is
Demobilization-Labour

unnecessary. If the commission says, "This claim should be checked," and you pass it over to the three-man board, then the decision of that board in the community should stand; the matter should not be passed along to an umpire in Ottawa who has very little idea of what the problem is.
I do not believe in one-man decisions. I can be wrong so many times myself when I think over a question that I always like to talk things over with other people. It gives one a new slant.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is just what judges do.
_ Mr. GILLIS: I wonder. At any rate, while judges have their place, I do not think it is on boards of this kind.
I have tried to !be helpful and in doing so I have merely .pointed out things that I believe are wrong. I do not think, judging from trends across Canada to-day, that we shall have very much peace in this country in the field of employment and in all related matters for the next couple of years. In my opinion we are going the wrong way about it. We are setting up unwieldy machinery, delegating the right, to private enterprise to go ahead and do the job. And they are not doing the job.
Last night I listened to the radio and heard the announcement that three more plants had closed down in Nova Scotia over night, without warning, one in the constituency represented by the Minister of Finance.. Crops are bad, the commentator stated. Things are in. a terrific state in Kentville. The plight is terrible, with three plants closed overnight. In short, that province to-day is faced with complete unemployment from one end to the other, and there seems to be no responsibility on the part of the people who have the job to do.
As soon as the war was over we should have recognized the importance of placing war workers and getting service personnel back into gainful employment. We should have recognized that this would take time and would .be difficult. These people should not have to bear all the suffering. One of the first things the Minister of Reconstruction should have done was to set up a labour-management committee, drawn from industry, which would sit in with him and plan matters, studying every question pertaining to industry. The minister may tell me that he has a committee of that kind, but I do not think so. I suggest that the personnel should come from the rank and file of the union members.
The organization of the garment workers should give us a lesson. They are working in [Mr. Gillis.I
cooperation with industry and the union planning reconversion, and there is no unemployment. The whole thing is running like clockwork, because industry and the organization are (working together.
The Minister of Reconstruction has a difficult job of reconversion, and he should have called in the ^union heads and sat down with them and tallied things over. They would have done the job with, less difficulty. In my opinion we should set up a minimum subsistence income for all service personnel coming back and finding it impossible to get work, and that income should be at least $25 a week. It should apply to the. war workers equally. They will be unemployed for some time. Instead of wasting words we should have established that income. It could have been done by augmenting the amount that is being paid by way of unemployment insurance, but instead of that :we have an army running around the country trying to find something that does not exist-work. And there will be none for some time. In the meantime, many war workers have taken on the obligation of homes. They have started buying houses and now they find themselves without any income.
There are many other matters that I might have discussed at length, but I think these two steps that I have mentioned in the field of employment are very important; first, getting the cooperation of people who understand the job at the bottom, talking it over with, the minister and working out a solution with the advice of people who come directly in contact with the workers in the plants; and second, establishing a minimum subsistence income. All we are doing now is giving relief for the time being, and the service personnel coming back are bitter when they think they have to go back to that kind of thing. As I said when I got up to speak, I did not intend to criticize.
I want to be helpful and to point out the difficulties as I see them. If matters are discussed in this way we have some hope of a solution. These things are not mysterious; the solution is a matter of plain common sense, What is lacking is the will to do something. That is the trouble. There is too much delayed action, too much waste of time. The Minister of Labour has a tough job, but let me say that no job is too tough if you face up to it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would like to see you tackle it.


Clarence Gillis: That is exactly what I am saying. Take the Ford strike. I am not going to discuss that because it is the minister's problem, but he is still where he was when we first talked about it. I would have put

Demobilization-Labour
a controller in the plant within the first twenty-four hours after the Ford company showed me that they were unreasonable; and the minister is still faced with that. You cannot do anything else. There is no legislation in this province to which you can refer. Ford has slapped the whole government and eyeryone else [DOT] in the face. The union has backed up as far as it can go, and still the matter is where it was before. The struggle that kills most people is the fight within themselves. . I repeat, I would have put a controller in long ago, and the minister is still in the position where he will have to do that.
I would suggest to any members of this house who may have influence with the Ontario government that they advise the authorities there to call a session of the legislature and pass a trade union act for this province so that the same difficulty will not arise again. It is really a provincial matter until such time as we change the British North America Act and make it national. That is the only solution. If we keep on quibbling as we are doing, if we keep on guessing and trying to make things work, we shall find ourselves behind the eight ball within the next year or so. We must face up to the problem and run the country in the interests of all the' people instead of in the interests of any particular group. It would not worry me much to tell Ford what I thought, or to tell the union either, if I thought they were wrong.
I have already made my statement this afternoon on union security, and I have stated that the great majority of the people who discuss it do not understand it. The mechanics are simple. I know, because we fought it out when the going was tough and we had no parliament to appeal to, when the coal companies had private police forces and you could not meet in a hall but had to assemble in somebody's house. On any of these matters it is a question of being fair and square no matter whom you offend, so long as it is in the best interests of the people of this country.


Mr. REID:: It was my intention to wait
until the estimate in regard to the amount spent on the Japanese in this country was before the committee before I said anything; but since this debate was opened last night and certain speeches on the Japanese were made by hon. members on the other side of the house I feel compelled to say a few words now.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East) :: May I ask the hon. member to speak a little louder so that we may be able to hear what he is saying.


Thomas Reid: It is not very often that any hon. member or even anyone in the gallery has any difficulty in hearing what I have to say. Let me assure the hon. member that before I am through he will be able to hear what I have to say because there are things that I wish to say particularly to the members of his group.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hurrah!


Thomas Reid: Do not wave the flag too soon
because the show is just beginning. First may I say this to the Minister of Labour. It is perfectly true that he wants to get his estimates through; it is perfectly true that the house wants to get -home before Christmas, but I wish to assure him that he will not have to read through my speech or wait very long to know what I really mean or for the committee to know what I mean. Generally speaking, I come to the point very quickly. I assure him and the committee that I shall not cover ground that has been already covered in this debate if I can avoid doing so.
First of all, may I deal with the statements that have been made outside this house against those of us from British Columbia who have taken the stand that the Japanese in our province and in other places should be sent out of Canada. While I do not intend to exhibit the heat that I think the hon. member for Vancouver East exhibited last night, I shall however exhibit heat against those who accuse me of raising this question and holding the views that I do simply on account of racial hatred. I deny that absolutely. It appears that if you differ with some people their main argument is that you are either a fascist or racially minded.
When I came to the house in 1931 I introduced a resolution, long before the Japanese question cropped up, to eliminate them from the Fraser river fishing. Before I get through with my remarks I shall ask any hon. member who feels like doing so to rise in his place and advocate that he is in favour of the Japanese going back to the fishing industry. May I tell the committee just why I introduced that resolution? At that time I discovered that Japan was in control of our fishing industry and that our own white Canadians were afraid of their lives to throw a net into the Fraser river opposite and below Steveston. I made up my mind then that I would do what I could to retrieve our heritage for our own people. I notice that a Doctor Sedgwick of British Columbia, a university
Demobilization-Labour

professor, had something drastic to say about those of us who hold the views I do. We have been called un-Christian and other names as well. Last evening the hon. member for Vancouver East and the leader of the C.C.F. party spoke about certain members holding views and referred to them as un-Christian. Well, I want to tell him and the other members of his party that when I want views on Christianity I will not go to any of that group to find out what Christianity really means, nor will I go to Doctor Sedgwick or Professor Angus or even some ministers of the gospel who are doing a great disservice to this country in making the^remarks they are making.
I hold the views I do rightly or wrongly. When we speak about hatreds in this country, to me the most dangerous hatreds are those that have, been built up since 1933, ever since the C.C.F. party came into being. That party has built up hatred of one class against another in this country. You can sense it everywhere at the present time. In almost every district in Canada where I have gone I have felt it; I have felt it in my own district, the hatred of one class of another. This is to my mind a bad thing to do. Members of that group get up and accuse us of raising racial hatreds. Others say that some of us should be put behind the bars. I know whom I would put behind the bars. There are some members of the legal profession, the ministerial profession and some professors whom I think it would be well for Canada to restrain in some way or other.


Mr. IRVINE:: Fascism.
Mr. MaeINNIS: They did that in Germany.


Thomas Reid: I now wish to deal with the matter without any degree of rancour at all. I want to deal with it in a practical way, and put forth some arguments to the committee and the country which so far have not been answered. There has been a lot of sentimental slosh outside the house, and there has been a lot of sentiment placed on the record here which I shall try to expose or correct. At least I am going to put some practical questions and practical matters before the committee and the country, and I hope that some hon. member will get up and answer them if he can.
With regard to the statement made by Sedgwick and others that the Japanese were removed from British Columbia at the time of Pearl Harbor because of the hysteria which existed in British Columbia, may I correct that immediately and put it right? Is there a man in this house who will rise in his place at this time and say that he knew the
[DOT]'Mr. Reid.]
Japanese would never attack British Columbia? Just think back to the time of Pearl Harbor. Our defences were then next to nothing. No one knew where and when the Japanese navy or aircraft would attack. For safety reasons the government did a splendid thing at that time by immediately taking all the boats of the Japanese fishermen and removing the Japanese into camps or into the interior back from the coast.
May I make this statement. This year I happened to go up the coast, and the captain of the C.P.R. boat pointed out to me, so long as daylight lasted, that in all the long inlets all the way from Vancouver to Prince Rupert, at all strategic points on our coast, there were Japanese houses. Does any hon. member say that that was not by design, that it was just accidental that these Japanese houses were right at the head of bays looking up the long bay and out to the ocean? Will any man say that if the Japanese had been left on the coast of British Columbia and Japan had attacked us, the Japs would not have helped them? If he does I shall tell him that he had better go back to the people of British Columbia and tell them that story, and I have an idea what kind of answer he would receive because no one would believe him.
It is all very well to talk of their loyalty now. I am going to put this practical question to the committee. I realize it is very difficult to say who is loyal and who is not; but it is my view, sir, that they kept quiet under the hand of the higher-up Japanese. If the Canadian born are loyal Japanese, why is it that no mention has been made of Japanese atrocities or even the defeat of Japan in the Japanese paper published here, called the New Canadian? This paper is published by young men and women born in this country who have been educated in our schools and colleges, and who those foolish professors and unwise preachers contend are truly Canadians. I ask them this question. If they are truly Canadians, why have they been silent and were silent in their own paper for the entire month of August and the following months as well? Not a word was said about atfocities, no. Not even a word was said about the defeat of Japan. I can understand their not saying anything about atrocities. Probably they did not want to raise any hatreds. I can forgive them for that. But why, if they were Canadians, did they not publish anything in their paper about Japan being defeated? Strange they did not mention it. Not one voice was raised in their paper. I am particularly pointing my

Demobilization-Labour
finger at the C.C.F. group,, because they are the ones who say that the Japs are truly Canadians.


William Irvine: You are the ones who
brought them in.


Thomas Reid: You cannot lay that at my door.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: We are the ones who moved them out.


Thomas Reid: May I now deal with the next point, namely, about their being loyal Canadians. I have asked this question of various groups; I have asked it from ministers and professors; I have asked it in this House of Commons, and I am going to ask it again, and shall be pleased if any hon. member following me will rise in his place and answer the question. Can a person who is born in this country be a truly Canadian citizen if he owes first allegiance to the country from which his father came? Every Japanese in this country was, before the war-and I believe they still are-duly registered with Japan; and as such they have been looked upon by that government as Japanese citizens. As a matter of fact, when Japan was counting the number of fishermen employed she always included in that number the number of Japanese fishermen in British Columbia. And when a Japanese died the undertaker had to send his birth certificate and death certificate to the government of Japan, even though the man -was born here.
I ask this further question: If they are Canadian citizens, then why has not one of them got up and publicly renounced the Emperor of Japan and the Japanese government? Why have they not stood up and said, "I am a Canadian; I was bom here of Japanese parents, but I am a Canadian. I have no allegiance to Japan. They do not have any hold on me at all."
But, no; a great silence from all the Japanese here. And I ask those people who are criticizing me and holding up the Canadian-born Japanese, to answer this question: Why has not one of those Japanese renounced his allegiance to Japan? My advice to the government is not to make one of them a Canadian citizen unless they did so.
We come now to the question of assimila-bility. I know that many others and I differ on this subject. Some of them say that they are assimilable and that intermarriage with the Japanese should be carried out. But I notice they are always the ones who want that kind of experiment tried out on someone else's family, not on their own. If I were in
a carping mood this afternoon I would certainly take grave exception to the statement made by a former C.C.F. member of the legislature who, thank heaven, was defeated in the last election but who said in Victoria that in her opinion the Scots were harder to assimilate in this country than the Japanese. I can assure you of this, sir, that if I had been present when it was said in the provincial house there would have been more said and done about it than was said or done. No greater insult has been lodged against any race than for a member to get up in the legislature of British Columbia and say that the Scottish people were harder to assimilate than the Japanese. The Japanese cannot be assimilated.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Scots are the most generous people in the world.


Thomas Reid: These are the people who are saying that I am raising racial cries; yet they expect us to swallow these insults. I could say plenty about what has been said about myself, about being a foreigner.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are.


Thomas Reid: Who said that?


William Ross Macdonald: If that statement were made it should be expunged from Hansard.


Thomas Reid: I thought I heard it; I hope I did not.


William Ross Macdonald: I am directing Hansard that if the statement were made it should not appear in Hansard.


Mr. HANSELL:: On a point of order, I do not wish to take issue with your instructions to Hansard, Mr. Chairman, but I think you are going beyond your authority when you issue such instructions. That cannot be done without unanimous consent of the house.


Thomas Reid: As no one answered when I asked who said it, I do not suppose it is on Hansard, so that we do not have to worry about it. But if it is, I will take care of the matter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the interruption.
I am placing these practical matters before those who hold views which are opposite to mine. I am not raising any racial cry, but I maintain to those people that the Japanese are a non-assimilable race, and that as such they are a danger for the present and1 future of Canada. Second, I have spoken against dual citizenship. At one and the same time they cannot be citizens of two countries.
I know that sometimes it has been asked: Why not criticize the Germans in this country? Why not criticize the Italians? Why pick
Demobilization-Labour

on the Japanese? There, again, I should' like to explain some of the reasons why I have taken issue with the Japanese. So far as I know, neither of the countries mentioned has laid claim to those born in. Canada, nor have I ever heard of a German or an Italian born in this country going back to do military duty in Germany or Italy.
I make the statement, without fear of successful contradiction, that the Japanese came to this country under a definite plan of the Japanese war lords. It is true that in the first instance they were brought here because they offered cheap labour, but later they were brought or sent to this country under that definite plan of their war lords, one which looked toward1 the day when Japan would strike for the supremacy of the Pacific.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Has my hon. friend any definite authoritative evidence on that point?


Thomas Reid: I have this authority: I have one of the Japanese year books which shows that the Japanese government lent millions of dollars to their citizens to settle on the Pacific coast. And I cannot see a government like that of Japan lending their nationals great sums of money just for the welfare of those Japanese who came here.


Angus MacInnis: Can the hon. member quote from the Japanese year book to that effect?


Thomas Reid: Yes, I can quote from the Japanese year book; and if the hon. member will look up the records of this house he will find that I mentioned it on another occasion. I quoted the Japanese year book for 1934 in that speech, showing that in that year 52 million yen were sent back by the Japanese on the Pacific coast to Japan. That was returnable money, as shown by the Japanese records. Will my hon. friend suggest that they would put it in the year book if it were not true?


Angus MacInnis: How much money did they really send; that is what I am talking about?


George Alexander Cruickshank: We do not send professors over there to find out the things we want to know.


Thomas Reid: The 52 million yen of which I have spoken were not by way of gifts, but rather in the paying back of loans for their establishment in Canada. It was not a straight gift at all. I am not speaking about gifts. I am speaking about a different matter entirely, about a business transaction carried out years ago by the Japanese government.
Let me come now to some statements which were made the other night by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member
for Kootenay West. I have always differed with the hon. member for Vancouver East regarding the resolution he placed before the house in 1936. I make no bones about the matter; I voted against it. Why should I make any bones about it? I believe it was he and Mrs. Maclnnis that published a booklet and spread it widely throughout the Fraser Valley in which they mentioned particularly Tom Reid. I do not mind that. The publishing of the book has done me no harm, because I am still a member of the House of Commons.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It would be free advertising.


Thomas Reid: Yes, but of a doubtful kind. Be that as it may, I would ask hon. members who are interested in the matter to look at Hansard for February 20, 1936, the day the resolution was introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver East. Any hon. member who is interested will find that, although the resolution, as he read it to us last night, quoting from one of the little pamphlets that were circulated, states specifically:
Therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this house, the government should take the necessary measures to exclude from the country all persons belonging to those groups to whom we do not grant the full rights and privileges of citizenship . . .
-the fact remains that at least eighty-five or ninety per cent of his entire speech was devoted to the Japanese. Very little was said about other orientals included in the resolution-the Chinese, or those who come from India, and whom we describe as Hindus. The question of Indians was involved in that resolution and they are British subjects. The question of the Chinese was also involved. While they are orientals, they represent a diminishing problem in British Columbia. But if you look over that speech carefully and without bias you will come to the conclusion that the resolution was aimed1-this is my opinion at least.-against the Japanese. I have often wondered why the hon. member for Vancouver East, when he wras devoting his speech to the Japanese, did not mention the Japanese specifically in his resolution.
The resolution had another weakness. It asked that we. exclude from this country those races to whom we do not give the vote. Please note that would refer to one province only, because in all the other provinces Hindus, Japanese and Chinese can vote.
If the Japanese are worrying about losing the franchise it seems to me strange that they should be reluctant to stay in those provinces which grant them the franchise. But no; they

Demobilization-Labour
are all willing to come back to British Columbia-if we allow them to. If I know the people of British Columbia, and I think I know them just as well as any member from that province; I know that if you put that to a vote-I am willing that it should go to a vote-they will state in unmistakable terms that all be returned to Japan.
It was stated by the Minister of Labour last night that 10,000 or so may be returned and that the remainder will be spread throughout the other provinces. I am wondering under what act we shall be able to keep people from travelling from one province to another. I doubt if it can be done. I feel in my heart and mind that once the restrictions are lifted, every last Jap will go back to British Columbia.
I should like to offer some criticism of some of the provinces that criticize us. These provinces seem reluctant to keep the Japanese. They contend, however, that British Columbia should take them but they do not want them. This is now a national problem and the future of the country is involved. The only way to handle this unassimilable race is to send them back. As is well known, over
10,000	of the Japanese signified their willingness to return to Japan. The hon. member for Vancouver East has disputed the minister's statement, but he made it again most emphatically. I am glad the Minister of Labour did say that no duress or compulsion had been used. I would point out to the hon. member for Vancouver East and the rest of the committee that before any step was taken by the government, before the R.C.M.P. went around and asked them to sign that paper, a great number of Japanese, many Canadian born, wrote to the Spanish consulate of their own volition and asked that they be returned to Japan.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: How many?


Thomas Reid: I cannot give the exact number and the hon. member will just have to take my word for it, but my information is that there were something like 2,200, most of them Canadian born, who requested the Spanish consul to have them returned to Japan. I realize that some of these Japanese may be loyal citizens, but when I visited the camp that was set up in Hastings park in Vancouver I found that there was a group there who had made it abundantly clear, when the Spanish consul visited the camp, that they were in this country at the request of Japan, and that they looked to Japan for protection. Of course they thought Japan was going to win, and they boldly said, "We will put it all over you; you will be working for us when Japan is the boss." These same
bold Japs in the camp at Hastings park were making it known that they did not care what happened, that we could do what we liked with them. Some of the same Japs later infiltrated into the various camps throughout the country.
I should like to refer to one or two of the statements made last night by the hon. member for Kootenay West. He referred to various meetings that had been held at which resolutions had been passed in favour of keeping the Japanese here. He mentioned the British Columbia municipalities. It is true that on two occasions when a resolution was brought up at their convention it was turned down, but there was a reason. I should like to remind the members of the Liberal party, of the Conservative party and of the Social Credit party that they could take a leaf out of the book of the C.C.F. party on political manipulation. They have seen to it that, wherever possible, members of their organization shall belong to municipal councils.
A great majority of the council members who attended those conventions were members of the C.C.F. and opposed any move to send the Japs back. They could not do otherwise because their leaders had spoken. At the first convention the resolution was lost, but in 1945 there was a different story. The hon. member for Kootenay West said that in the eastern part of British Columbia they had passed resolutions in favour of the Japs, but he did not tell the committee about the west. One of the largest conventions of municipalities was held at the coast in 1945, and they passed a resolution containing views similar to those which I and others hold.
With regard to the meeting at Richmond, to which he referred, which is in the riding that I have the honour to represent, he did not tell the committee the whole story. I had nothing at all to do with the first meeting called, but I was invited to attend. There were 450 fishermen at that meeting, and the hon. member made no mention of the fact that, with the exception of one man, who I understand was sent there to speak in their favour, the meeting was unanimously against the Japanese.
Then a small group of men who were endeavouring to have the Japanese repatriated attended a later meeting. The information I have is that that meeting was plugged by a group from the university, engineered to a great extent by this same Doctor Sedgewick. I was not at the meeting, but that is the information I have. The meetings were held at places only five miles apart. I thought it strange that at one meeting the members were unanimous for the repatriation of the

Demobilization-Labour
Japanese, and yet at another meeting, held two weeks later and only five miles away, a motion to repatriate them was lost. My further information is that a row developed, which I understand was engineered in an effort to mix up the meeting by somebody from the university who came for that very purpose. They did not belong to the municipality; they lived in Vancouver and other districts.


Mr. POULIOT:: They are dangerous people.


Angus MacInnis: Who, the university
people?


Thomas Reid: I think I have said all I need say without covering ground that I have covered before. Would there be anything wrong with giving the boys who fought and bled for this country an opportunity to say what they would do with the Japanese? Why are the people to whom I have referred afraid to leave the matter to our returned men? I have not projected into the argument this afternoon certain revolting stories, because one feels that he should not introduce particulars of atrocities, but I am just wondering how these foolish professors and unwise teachers really can believe in their own hearts that we have produced in this country a group of completely civilized human beings who are only one generation removed from savagery. If their attitude is right, that because these people have been born in British Columbia and raised in our schools, that makes them equal to our own citizens, we are perhaps wasting our time in sending missionaries to Japan. If their views are correct, why not bring more of the Japanese here to become civilized? I have often wondered if that thought has not percolated through the minds of those who hold this theory. But that is what they are saying, that all the Japanese who were born here are highly civilized, the equal of our own citizens. Yet one could mention, although I am not going to do so, case after case of Japanese who are at least accused of being the perpetrators of the very worst kind of crimes to our soldiers in Japan -men born and educated in the province of British Columbia. I leave that thought with this committee, and I want those who disagree with it to answer the questions I have raised: the question of dual citizenship, the question of assimilability; and to give the reasons they have, if any, why the Japanese paper published by Canadian-born Japanese has kept absolutely silent both on the atrocities of Japan and likewise on the defeat of Japan. It is very noticeable that this seeming change of tMr. Reid.]
heart by the Japanese who now want to remain here, has all taken place since Japan was defeated.


Mr. GREEN:: Mr. Chairman, there are
many new members in this House of Commons, and during the discussions this session I have noticed that they have given very careful consideration to serious issues that were brought before them. This afternoon I should like them to follow me in my discussion of the Japanese question, because it has now ceased to be the. problem simply of those Canadians who face the Pacific and has become the problem of all Canada. I shall discuss it from that point of view.
Before doing so, I Should like to say a word about my good friends the hon. member for Vancouver East, a member of the C.C.F. party, and the hon. member for Kootenay West, an ex-member of the C.C.F. party but who apparently is still thoroughly in accord with the C.C.F. on their Japanese policy. On this question as on many others they fail completely to face the facts. It reminds me of their attitude when Canada went to war. Here we were entering a life-andkieath struggle, and yet that party took the stand that Canada must not send one man from her shores; it would be all right to send munitions or to send food, but we must not send one man. They were totally wrong then. They failed at that time to face the facts, but it was just what one might have expected from them because in the years preceding the war they had done everything they could to break down the defence forces of Canada and had advocated a one-sided disarmament. Their heads completely in the air, their feet right off the ground, they failed to face the problems that had to be settled by the Canadian people.
That has been their attitude. And last night they presumed to say that on this Japanese question they represent Christianity. Well, that is a tall order. I sometimes think they take themselves far too seriously. Certainly they have no corner on representing Christianity, any more than they have a corner on representing the common man-another title they claim so often. But I am sure of one thing, that on this Japanese question they do not represent the people of British Columbia. Their overwhelming defeat in the provincial election in British Columbia a few weeks ago showed that, when they had ten of their sitting members defeated, lost ten of their leading men, and yet their provincial candidates did not go nearly as far on this issue as the hon. member for Vancouver East; they rather hide their heads when he takes his stand on this question.

Demobilization-Labour
The present Japanese situation is the result of the failure of the Canadian people to heed those Canadians who live west of the Rocky mountains. They failed to heed them right down through the years, for half a, century. This issue first arose nearly fifty years ago. When the Japanese started to come to Canada our predecessors in this house protested against their admission session after session. The dominion government failed to do an}' thing about the matter. The imperial government recommended to Ottawa that Canada should pass a Natal act similar to the act passed by Australia and South Africa, under which there is a Language test which has had the effect of keeping the Japanese out of those two dominions. The British Columbia legislature passed a Natal act six times, and six times it was disallowed by the dominion government, in several cases at the instigation of the Japanese consul general in Vancouver, who complained bitterly each time British Columbia passed such an act. There were riots in Vancouver about 1907 or 1908 over this Japanese, question because the Japanese-were being allowed to come in by the thousand. As a result of the riots, a gentleman's agreement was entered into and the number of Japanese coming in was reduced; it was reduced again in the twenties, but there were Japanese coming into Canada right up to the time that Japan struck on December 7, 1941.
Practically all of them settled on the coast of British Columbia. The Minister of Labour gave the figures last night. About 95 per cent remained in British Columbia, and remained right in the coastal area. We had twice as many Japanese in proportion to our population in British Columbia as the state of California and three times as many as the state of Washington, which adjoins us on the south. There these people were, settled on the British Columbia coast, in contact with Japan all the time, with Japanese merchant vessels coming into our harbours, with fishing boats coming over, and with in many cases, the Japanese in British Columbia sending their children back to be educated in Japan. There were 1,500 children of Japanese in British Columbia in Japan at the time of Pearl Harbor. Those young Japanese in many cases went back and took military training and in due course came back to British Columbia. The city of Vancouver was the centre of Japanese activity in Canada. It was not here in Ottawa where the ambassador resided, but in Vancouver where the consul general had his office.
In 1940 the Japanese government took a census of the Japanese in Canada, and I have here a newspaper clipping of that time in which the census is explained in these words: It is the regular ten-year census taken of Japanese at home and abroad.
Births in Canada were registered with the Japanese consul in Vancouver so that they might not lose their status as Japanese subjects; help was given through the consul's office so that' the Japanese might buy up farms and engage in fishing and other industries; and, the most serious aspect of all, Japanese are emperor-worshippers; the emperor is their god. Hon. members have seen how this summer the Japanese emperor had merely to say the word that the war was over and Japanese armies stopped fighting in every theatre, showing the total power of the Japanese emperor over these people. How can one expect the vast majority of them to be loyal Canadians first? I have no doubt there are some, but how can one expect the vast majority, the rank and file of the Japanese in Canada, to have loyalty to Canada first and to Japan second?
Something has been said of naturalization. It is an accepted fact that the great majority of the Japanese who became naturalized did so in order to get fishing licences. They could not fish without becoming British subjects. A commission inquired into this question as far back as 1900. I am not going to quote their finding; I did that two years ago, but any hon. members who are interested can find it in the sessional papers of this house for 1902.
The hon. member for New Westminster has pointed out that they were located at strategic points on our coast. They had 1,100 fishing boats. They knew the coast far better than our own people did. There was spying. We hear the statement made at different times that nothing which was at all improper was done by these people. Just six days ago dispatches appeared in the press across Canada; I have one here from the Vancouver Sun:
Jap spies busy here during war.
Japanese spies in Vancouver were_ instructed to attempt to secure information during the war on such matters as ship movements, military mobilization and geographical facts, according to a report to-day from Washington, D.C.
These disclosures were made when exhibits were placed before the congressional committee investigating the happenings which plunged the United States into war and temporarily broke the backbone of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor.
Copies of a message seeking such information were forwarded to Jap agents in Vancouver and Ottawa, it was stated, but its source was not identified . . .
Demobilization-Labour

This spy activity began months before Pearl Harbor.
One need not be surprised1 at that finding, because they were spying everywhere that the Japanese landed. I do not suppose anyone will question that fact. I have here, for example, a press dispatch of February 24, 1942, from London, headed:
Tremendous extent of Jap espionage becoming apparent.
It points out:
Japanese espionage has encircled the world. The latest disclosure of its efficiency comes from Darwin, Australia, where the accuracy of the recent bombing by the yellow air raiders has been such that knowledge of every important target must have been gained by the enemy.
Remember, for many years Australia has not allowed Japanese to enter, and had only about 2,500 when the war broke out.
Also, among Dutch people in London, it is well known that for years past Japanese fishermen throughout the whole Netherlands East Indies collected military information on a wholesale scale.
That is the background. These are some of the happenings which so worried the people of British Columbia. On December 7, 1941, Japan struck at Pearl Harbor. In the previous year, on September 27, 1940, she announced her alliance with Germany and Italy. I very well remember, the night after Japan struck at Pearl Harbor, we were warned that Vancouver was to be attacked. We had our first black-out. Then we heard over the radio the order that all Japanese fishing boats must report at certain centres. The boats were called in right away. That was a very wise move on the part of the government. But after that was done nothing else happened. The Japanese were allowed to remain sitting in these different locations. I myself was taken by the commander of the Vancouver defence area some weeks later to see the gun position defending the mouth of the Fraser river. Between the huts in which the men lived and the guns was the home of the leading Japanese in that particular centre, and the army men were worried about the situation. Another friend of mine commanded a post out on the west coast of Vancouver island. He served with me in the last war. He said, "I have not my guns set up to protect against invasion; I have them trained on the Japanese village; that is where my trouble will come from if it comes." At that time we had on the Pacific coast fewer aeroplanes than could be carried on one Japanese aircraft carrier, and all but a handful of them were obsolescent. We had a divided command-a commander of the army, a commander of the navy, a commander of the air force-just as the Americans

had at Pearl Harbour when the Japanese struck there. Our position from a defence point of view was hopeless if the Japanese had cared to strike.
I have here a dispatch from Elmore Philpott, one of the leading columnists of Canada. He happens to be a very liberal-minded commentator: he was largely or partly responsible for the election of the hon. member for Kootenay West; he went there and helped him in his campaign; he also advocated the election of many members of the C.C.F.; and he advocated my own election. He lives in my riding; so that was what counted.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Pretty broadminded!


Howard Charles Green: I have here an article of his which appeared some time in February, 1942. He says:
I do not know one responsible B.C. official, cabinet minister, police, forester or otherwise, who is satisfied with things as they are on the Pacific coast. Unfortunately the service men can't speak out.
Nobody needs to be a secret service agent to know that a Japanese fifth column will work wherever the Japanese government wants it to work. It is not a question of the loyalty or disloyalty of individual Japanese, native born or otherwise. In a total population of some
25,000	there is no conceivable way of keeping the Japanese government from planting or employing active fifth columnists to do whatever it wants done.
The entire Japanese population should be moved from this coast as soon as it is humanly possible. That means now-before an actual military action can take place.
As it is the government has only begun to deprive them of their radios, short wave or otherwise, on which they can take daily code messages. The government has not only allowed them to stay right beside guns-but it has left them close to vital power plants which are so poorly protected that they could be destroyed far more easily than the Normandie was fired last week.
There was grave danger of an attack on Canada's Pacific shores. That was the time when sabotage would have taken place. Had troops attempted to land they would have expected support from the local residents. A dispatch appeared in February'-, 1942, from the United States to this effect:
That's when the campaign of sabotage is to be waged. The reason there has been no outbreak of sabotage in the United States so far is that the Japanese government has ordered the Japs in this country to withhold such activities until the military attacks.
If the Japanese fleet had not been defeated at Midway, if the Japanese task force had not been turned back on its way to take Dutch Harbor in Alaska, there would probably have been a landing on the shores of British Columbia. I emphasize these things, since the cry is now raised that these Japanese were removed only because there was a lot of race

Demobilization-Labour
prejudice on the coast; there was a lot of racial hatred, and so the government moved them out. The demand for the removal of the Japanese came from the commanders of the forces and from public men. I have here a wire I received dated February 24, 1942, sent to me at Ottawa, signed by twenty-one or twenty-two of our leading citizens, among them Harold E. Winch, M.L.A., leader of the C.C.F. in British Columbia and Grant MacNeil, M1.A,, one of their outstanding figures, a man who served ably in this house from 1935 to 1940. The telegram says:
Owing to widespread public alarm over enemy aliens on the Pacific coast and especially respecting those astride vital defence points and with a view to stabilizing public opinion and in the interest of public safety the undersigned met and now urge:
1.	That military authorities be immediately authorized to remove enemy aliens from any and all points considered by military authorities essential in the interests of proper and adequate defence and public safety.
2.	That the evacuation of all those of Japanese origin from the Pacific coast area be proceeded with immediately and plans to this effect announced.
That wire does not show race prejudice but it does show deadly peril. A protected zone was set up extending 100 miles from the coast and including Vancouver island, the Queen Charlotte islands and other islands. In due course the government set up what was known as the British Columbia security commission, and an advisory committee to that commission was appointed. One member of the advisory committee was Mr. Winch, leader of the C.C.F., and the secretary of the advisory committee was Mr. Grant MacNeil. The Japanese were moved away from the protected area and settled in the interior of British Columbia. A few were sent east of the Rockies. But the provinces-and this is where the other provinces come into the picture-insisted, in the agreements which were made with the British Columbia security commission concerning these Japanese, that after the war the Japanese must be removed on the request of the particular province. I have here the agreement with Alberta dated May 6, 1942, of which paragraph 10 reads:
The commission agrees to remove or to have removed from the province, upon the termination of the state of war now existing between Canada and Japan, the Japanese temporarily placed or maintained within the province pursuant to the terms of this agreement as requested so to do by the province.
There was a similar agreement with Ontario and a letter containing the same understanding with Manitoba. I believe there was either a letter to or an agreement with the province
of Quebec-the minister can correct me there if I am wrong-and also, if you please, with the province of Saskatchewan.


Humphrey Mitchell: There was nothing with
Quebec.


Howard Charles Green: Some of the Japanese from the coast were interned. At one time over six hundred were in an internment camp in Ontario, and on October 31 of this year there were still interned in Ontario 416, of whom there were 168 Japanese nationals, forty-two naturalized Canadians, 203 born in Canada and three United States citizens. That number were still in internment camps. As time went on, the government decided on a dispersal policy. They did not say very much about it and I do not think they have been as frank with the Canadian people on this question as they might have been.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think my hon. friend will admit that we have done a good job.


Howard Charles Green: They have not said very much about it. They have not explained the position and they did not persuade the provinces to withdraw this provision.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think we have done a good job notwithstanding some people in the last parliament.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that the government could have done a better job and I will show some ways in which they could have done so. May I call it -six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Before the committee rises, I wonder if I might appeal to hon. members to finish to-night. Are there many questions which hon. gentlemen wish to ask the Minister of .Reconstruction later in regard to his estimates? I am most anxious that we should finish the whole measure to-night so that we may go on to-morrow with the emergency powers 'bill, which is vital to the progress of the session.


Mr. MACDONNELL:: The minister seems to be looking in my direction. I shall not detain the Minister of Reconstruction long this evening.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank you.


Mr. STIRLING:: When the Minister of Reconstruction was speaking to his estimates he volunteered to give a good deal of information that he was not prepared to give at the time. It would look as though this might be the only opportunity available.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We shall endeavour to finish with the Minister of Labour after eight o'clock and then have the Minister of Recon-
Demobilization-Labour

struetion answer such questions as are put to him. I trust that we shall have the resolution passed, reserving all rights to hon. gentlemen to ask questions under civil estimates which have not yet been dealt with.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose for the dinner recess I was outlining the moves which were taken to get the Japanese away from the protected area on the Pacific coast. The great majority were sent into the interior of British Columbia, but a small percentage were sent east of the Rockies where, in almost every case, they were under an agreement with the particular province in which they were settled that at the end of the war they would be returned to British Columbia upon request by that province. As the months went by the government tried to cariy out a policy of dispersal by persuading those Japanese to move east of the Rockies, and the younger aqd better ones west. Many of them have settled in eastern Canada on a permanent basis, and they deserve credit for having done so. Those who remained in British Columbia have been very hard to persuade to move. They have been very little interested in settling east of the Rockies. I think their whole plan is either to go back to Japan or to settle once more on the Pacific coast.
One feature which has not been emphasized during the debate is the attitude of many of the eastern centres. For example, take the city of Ottawa. This city has refused to allow any Japanese to settle, and yet the two Ottawa papers have been quite free in expressing their opinions editorially as to what British Columbia should do about the Japanese.
I hold in my hand the New Canadian, which is the publication of the Japanese. In the issue of November 25, 1944, we find the headline, "Canadian citizens refused trade licences in Toronto." Then in the- issue of September 2, 1944, we find this: "No Evacuees, says Chatham." There are many other cities in Canada which have refused to take any step to help solve the problem. Therefore we come to this position as of October 31 of this year; there were in British Columbia at that date 14,824; almost two-thirds of the Japanese in Canada are still in British Columbia; Alberta, 3,703.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would my hon. friend like the latest figures? They are slightly different.


Howard Charles Green: I would rather finish my remarks on this basis. These are the figures I got from the minister's department as of October 31. Saskatchewan has 160. Of those 160, only seventy-one have been evacuees. The others were there before the war. Manitoba has 1,171; Ontario, 3,509, which includes 416 who are interned; Quebec, 671, Nova Scotia one, and he was there before the war; New Brunswick ten, the Yukon and Northwest Territories twenty-nine, Prince Edward Island, none, a total of 24,078.
Bast summer the Prime Minister announced the policy of the government. In brief, it was to return to Japan those who wished -to go; to set up a loyalty commission to decide upon the loyalty or disloyalty of those who had not expressed a wish to go back; to send back those found disloyal; to disperse the rest across Canada, and that there would be no further immigration. . Eventually a survey began early in this year, 1945, of those who wished to go back to Japan. The people of Japanese origin across Canada were asked to make a choice. If they asked for repatriation, in each case they renounced their status as British subjects.
I hold in my hand another issue of the New Canadian, which gives the form they sign. It reads as follows:
1,	hereby declare my desire to
relinquish my British nationality and to assume the status of a national of Japan. Further, I request the government of Canada under the conditions set out in the statement of the Minister of Labour, dated February 13, 1945, to arrange for and effect my repatriation to Japan, together with my dependents under sixteen years of age as listed hereunder.
Where the Japanese was a Japanese national, he did not, of course, request the relinquishment of his status as a British subject. While this survey was being taken, the New Canadian kept advising those Japanese not to sign; it pleaded with them not to sign it, so that there is not much doubt about their knowing what they were doing. A large number did sign. I have here the figures as of August 31. They are a little different from those given last night by the minister; but they show by provinces; British Columbia, 8,941, and if every one of those went it would still leave British Columbia with 6,000 Japanese; Alberta, 571; that would leave about 3,100 in Alberta; Saskatchewan, two; Manitoba, 405, which would leave Manitoba with about 750; Ontario, 325, which would leave Ontario with 3,200; the mari-

Demobilization-Labour
times, none; the Yukon and Northwest Territories, none; internees, 216 of the 416 asked to be sent back to Japan; a total of 10,478. The minister gave a total of 10,347 last night.
After the survey had been completed, those Japanese who wished to be repatriated were moved into repatriation centres so that they could be sent back to Japan without further difficulty. I understand that since V-J day some have been trying to change their decision, and they are being stirred up constantly not only by the New Canadian, but also by pressure groups which have been formed in various parts of Canada. I think these pressure groups have little idea of helping to solve the problem. They do not seem to be worrying very much about the final solution of this problem. I suggest to the committee that what they are trying to do is to show how very broadminded they are at the expense of the people of British Columbia. That is pretty cheap business on an issue of this kind.
As yet no loyalty commission has been set up as promised by the Prime Minister, although the Department of Labour, through their British Columbia security commission, have extensive records of all those Japanese. Mark you, I think some of the most dangerous and some of the ones who are least Canadian are just cute enough to decline to sign the form to go back to Japan. They are waiting until the smoke blows away, and they plan to go on as they were doing before the war. For example, we have 200 internees who were sufficiently dangerous or obstreperous to be confined for several years. They have not asked to go back and presumably they are planning to stay here.
Then, I believe that all the Japanese nationals, as distinguished from naturalized Japanese, or those born in Canada, were not asked to sign one way or the other. ^ am told that by some of the officials of the British Columbia security commission. There was no requirement that all Japanese nationals should sign, and I believe quite a large number of them did not elect.


Humphrey Mitchell: They were all invited to sign, if I might put it in that way.


Howard Charles Green: They may have been invited to, but they were not required to. We should know what .the government intends to do with those nationals who have not signed one way or the other.
The greatest omission in the minister's statement last night was that he said nothing /whatsoever about the Japanese who are in the
other provinces, under an agreement to be taken away upon request at the end of the war. The attitude of these provinces is most significant. I have here another issue of the New Canadian, dated February 3, 1945, in which the hon. Mr. Fallow, acting premier of Alberta, is quoted as having said this:
When the war is over, these birds will have to get out.
He was referring then to Alberta. Then, the premier of Quebec, on March 16, is reported in this fashion:
Premier Duplessis told British United Press in Quebec city the provincial government would take constitutional means to prevent the establishment of Japanese there.
The premier of Ontario is quoted as follows on March 19:
It was not our choice these people should come into this province. As we understood, it was entirely a safety measure to move these people from British Columbia when it was thought there was possibility of invasion by Japanese forces. There is no reason an emergency measure of this kind should be employed to settle in this province Japanese whom we never sought and whom we would not have welcomed at that time.
I would ask at this time to hear from hon. members from those provinces as to what they think about this matter. What are they saying should be done with the Japanese in their provinces? Are they to be allowed to stay there, or are they to be put out? New Brunswick has only ten; yet the authorities at once gave an assurance to the, people of that province that the Japanese were there only during war time, and that they would go out when the war ended.
If they are to be allowed to remain in the other provinces, they must have the right to buy land and the right to go into business. They have not any of those rights at the present time, nor have they had since they were moved out of British Columbia.
So, you see, the problem is not yet being faced. This gives grave concern to the people of British Columbia, where we still have 14,824 Japanese. In addition, we may have all those sent back that the other provinces do not want. Then, after that, we might get those who will come back of their own free will, and who prefer to live in British Columbia. This means that the problem will be back exactly where it was before the war. That, I suggest to members of the house from other provinces, is unfair to the .people of British Columbia.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: And we do not intend to be put in that position.
Demobilization-Labour


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: We do not intend) again to see the Japanese gain, a foothold on the Pacific coast shoreline of Canada.
I suggest that some attention should be paid to what is said by those lads who have returned from Hong Kong. I have here a dispatch which puts on record the attitude of ten of those men who returned on October 4. They said:
"Don't let any Japanese settle in Canada. Their mental processes are different from ours and they will never adjust to the occidental way of life."
That's the unanimous indictment of the ten Canadian repats from Manila who arrived here yesterday on the United States transport General Lonyfitt."
I suggest these steps to the minister: First, the protected zone in British Columbia should be extended from the point 100 miles from the coast, right to the eastern boundary of the province. This should be maintained into the peace-time period, at least for a sufficient number of years to enable what Japanese remain in Canada to be properly settled elsewhere.
That was the policy of the Progressive Conservative party during the election, and for years prior thereto. The hon. member for Kootenay West said that we had no policy. Well, I think he was so busy quarreling with his C.C.F. friends that he did not have time to check up on a good many policies.


Angus MacInnis: Do not worry; before the next election you and the Liberals will have the same policy.


Howard Charles Green: In the second place I suggest that the government should send back those who have so requested. The minister spoke last night as though he might be allowing a whole Jot who were not Japanese nationals to change their minds. There may be some cases where injustices have been done, and those people should be given a further chance. But the vast majority knew what they were doing when they signed for repatriation, and the government should not be weak enough now to allow them to make any change.
Those who are found disloyal by the commission which is to 'be set up should be sent back. I think there is agreement on that point, on all sides of the house. However, that will still leave those who are not acceptable to the other provinces. And, by the way, this policy of making the whole of British Columbia a protected zone is the policy not only of the Progressive Conservative party but also of the Minister of Veterans

Affairs. A meeting on June 6, 1944, of the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion is reported as follows:
If the Japanese come back to British Columbia after the war, Hon. Ian Mackenzie will quit politics. That is by his own word.
Then, he said this at the time he was nominated-and I give him credit, because I think he meant it; a report of September 19, 1944, when he was nominated, credits him with this statement:
Not a single Japanese from the Rockies to the sea. I ask my fellow citizens of Vancouver Centre, and of British Columbia as a whole, to range themselves beside me on this issue and to serve notice on the rest of Canada that we will not have Japanese in this fair province.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: Then, as I have said, there would still be those who are not acceptable in other provinces. I suggest to the minister that consideration be given to making the request that, in the peace treaty with Japan, arrangements be made for resettling these Japanese in the Pacific, with adequate financial compensation and, if necessary, under united nations trusteeship. There will have to be many shifts in population provided for in the peace treaties. I believe that already the Chinese are sending all the Japanese out of China, and that the British have done the same in Singapore. Population shifts will have to be made in many parts of the world, and I suggest that this is a proposal which should be given serious consideration by the government.
For fifty years, half a century, the voice of British Columbia has not been listened to on this question, although British Columbians were the Canadians directly affected. And now, from this new parliament, I ask that we be given a final solution of the problem.


Fred Rose: I can think of no more urgent problem which could be discussed1 in this chamber than that of the estimates of the Department of Labour; and when I refer to an urgent problem I am not referring to the Japanese issue, which has received such lengthy debate. It is unfortunate, in fact, that the matter of the Japanese who reside in Canada comes under the Department of Labour, because surely there is sufficient to discuss in the field of labour-management relations in Canada, and especially at this time when we are in a state of reconversion from war to peace.
During the years of war all members of this house and all Canadians recognized that labour did a very fine job. Men and women worked on day shifts and night shifts; women and young girls left the small towns, the villages

Demobilization-Labour
and the farms to take up work which was quite hard for them to do. Men changed from town to town, from one job to another, and worked hard to produce the materials necessary for victor}*. Speaking last night, the minister paid a tribute to the workers who produced the weapons of war. He said:
I would be remiss if I did not say how splendidly our men and women played their part during the war years.
These are fine words, but the fact is that these people whose efforts were being praised, and they deserved to be, are to-day being confronted with many difficult problems. These workers through their unions adhered during war time to a "no strike" policy, but to-day in many industries they are being provoked into strikes. During the war many workers often felt that they had no other resort than to strike, and then their labour leaders would try to urge them to stay on the job despite all provocation. I saw a couple of union leaders who had received1 black eyes because they had urged the workers in a shipyard in Montreal to go back to work. It was not easy for trade union leaders, to convince the workers that they had to stand for all kinds of dirt because the weapons of war had to be produced.
As a reward, labpur to-day is being faced by a certain attitude on the part of some employers and, unless the government steps in, we shall have difficult times and instability for a long time to come. During war time I attended quite a number of union meetings in Quebec; I spoke to many workmen, and I have always been proud of the fact that it was lodge No. 712 of the Montreal aircraft workers, which contained a majority of French Canadian workers, that brought forth the idea of labour-management committees to increase production. They, too, are confronted to-day with difficulties.
There are some employers who unwillingly accepted collective bargaining in war time because there had to be production, but before the war was over they were planning to go back to what had obtained during pre-war years. The most outstanding example of this is the anti-union Ford Motor company. After seventeen months of boards and more boards, the workers had no' alternative than to strike. There comes a time when workers ask: What do we do next? Then comes the strike. The workers at Ford went out on strike and this strike has become a test for post-war labour-employer relations. It is also a test, as far as I am concerned, of the government's attitude toward rewarding workers who did such 47696-153
a fine job during war time. I must say that the government's role has not been the best; it has not been encouraging to labour.
On a number of occasions in this house we have heard the minister give the reasons for the delay in settling this strike. The company offered the alibi that the powerhouse was closed and that their executive staff could not get into the offices. We were told of the calamities that would befall the city of Windsor and the Ford Motor company if the power-house were not opened. That was the reason given for sending the police to Windsor. The R.C.M.P. went there; the provincials went there. The Ford Motor company does not seem anxious to open the power-house.
Acting in what I thought was a most conciliatory manner, the union offered to reopen the power-house and give the executive staff access to the offices. Negotiations were opened between the union and the company and every one hoped that an agreement would be reached. The minister spent a few' days there in a sincere effort to bring the two parties together, but sincerity does not always get results especially when one is confronted with an anti-union element that is ready to do everything in its power to smash thp union.
In a statement issued yesterday the company now charges that the union's offer to open the power-house was a hollow offer. On the other hand, the union states that when they got together with the company a few days ago for a discussion there was a basic understanding that the company would discuss the twenty-two points in dispute. But here is what happened, according to the union's statement:
We were amazed to discover at to-day's session, however, that the company was only prepared to discuss six minor points of the twenty-two in dispute. *
And again:
On the union security issue the company definitely refused to discuss any phase of the issue, even in exploratory fashion. When asked if it would discuss a mild form of union security as a tentative settlement pending further negotiations in order to bring about the resumption of the .plant in the interests of the workers and the nation, they gave a definite no.
A number of other suggestions were offered in the form of compromises but the company indicated in no uncertain manner that they were not willing to discuss any but the six points. They displayed a complete irresponsibility to the needs of the hour by refusing to discuss such vital issues as veterans' seniority, seniority, severance pay, hospitalization, insurance and reconversion committee, which are basic requisites to bargaining in good faith.
There are other employers, some anti-union, who are to-day watching the Ford Motor

Demobilization-Labour

company. If Ford is successful, then they feel they can start to try to smash the unions themselves. They are watching that giant of .ndustry; they want the day to come when they will have a free hand. We have an example of this in Toronto where at present there is a strike at Imperial Optical. This is a smaller company, but it is rather rich having had plenty of protection through special tariff arrangements and1 what-not.- This company refuses to deal with the union, despite the fact that over a year ago the union was certified as the bargaining agent. This company, and many others, are waiting to see what will be the outcome at Ford.
Where do we go from here? What now? I would say that these strikes show that there is something radically wrong with our. labour legislation. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If our labour legislation were better, we would not have so many strikes; we could look forward to a more peaceful future for labour and1 management. It is because our labour legislation is inadequate that we have these troubles to-day, and it is time that the government acted, especially in the Ford strike. That strike has now lasted for two months, affecting 10,000 workers in the Ford plant, 8,000 workers - in other plants, besides the many others who have been thrown out of work through the closing of the Ford plant. All these porkers want a settlement of the strike. What is necessary is that the government act. That is the only solution because the company will not yield. That is very clear from the full page advertisement that appears in to-day's papers, and I suppose it appears in all the newspapers throughout the country. They are paying for newspaper advertisements with deductions from taxes, to tell the country why they will not settle the strike. The government must act to-day. A few weeks ago the government appointed controllers for the packing plants, and the order in council stated that this action was taken because the people of Europe needed food and relief. What about the people in Windsor, the thousands of families who will starve unless this strike is settled soon? A controller is the only answer, and action must come soon. The strike should not have been allowed to drag along for so long.	.
The Minister of Labour in his report to the house last night, speaking of the problems confronting the country in connection with reconversion, said:
I am convinced of this, that just as we built the greatest industrial machine in the life of this nation, and built it in a very short time after the outbreak of war and the fall of France, given the cooperation of the Canadian people, leadership on the part of employers' iMr. Rose.]
and workmen's organizations and also in agriculture, together with this government, we can make just as big a contribution to peace as we made to the recent war.
I fully agree with that statement, but the situation is somewhat different now. In war time, when the government felt that it was necessary to control a certain mine because it contained precious metals, the mine was taken over. If a certain industry was not producing as rapidly as it should, the government stepped in and set up a crown company. If the management in a certain industry was not satisfactory, the government stepped in and changed the management. There was quite a bit of necessary intervention-some might call it interference-by the government to ensure that things ran smoothly. Are the government willing to do the same thing today? If they are, we should have no trouble in this country. If they are not; if they are to revert to a laissez-faire attitude, leaving the vast mass of people dependent for their livelihood upon a few individuals, we are bound to have trouble. It is the government's responsibility to guarantee that we have stable conditions and not to leave it to individuals. It is the government's responsibility to help avoid strikes by guaranteeing Canadians good wages and a full measure of security, because we all recognize, and those who do not should, that this period is a carryover of the war emergency; it is just as much an emergency as the war itself.
My party, the Labour-Progressive party, has a minimum programme which we believe the country needs at this time if we are to proceed smoothly and ensure that the people ' get more purchasing power and a greater security. Our minimum programme is this: (1) The universal application of the forty-hour week and an increase in wages to safeguard the take-home pay; (2) the amendment of P.C. 9384, the wage control order, to permit the raising of wage rates which are too low to provide for the minimum standard of health and decency; (3) the introduction of a national minimum wage rate of 55 cents an hour; (4) the amendment of P.C. 1003, the collective bargaining regulations, to provide for union security; (5) an increase of 50 per cent in unemployment insurance payments.
That is a constructive programme which should be implemented. These are things that need discussion at the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction. We know that this conference is not going to sail smoothly. The Montreal Gazette in this morning's issue reported that Premier Drew and Premier Duplessis had met at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Montreal. That does not augur well for

Demobilization-Labour
the success of the conference. But whatever views may be expressed at the conference, an enlightened public opinion can force the delegates to change their minds. There are certain matters which have not been taken up by the conference which should be raised, and I have in mind particularly the problem of labour relations. In the proposals submitted by the government of Canada to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction I find this with regard to wage control and collective bargaining:
Much has been said at various times about the desirability of uniformity throughout Canada of minimum wage standards, occupational coverage, maximum hours of work and minimum age of employment, consistent with justifiable local or regional variations in cost of living standards. The dominion government is most willing to discuss any proposals which might be made in these fields.
I regret that it was put as mildly as that. It was up to the government, just as it came along with proposals regarding health and old age pensions, to come along also with proposals respecting a minimum wage and a national labour code. There is a growing sentiment throughout the country in favour of a national labour code. It was interesting to note that in the province of Quebec, which is often referred to as an isolationist province, a labour delegation a few weeks ago proposed to Premier Duplessis a national code for labour.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I did not hear that. Did the hon. member say that the premier of Quebec wanted a national code?


Fred Rose: No. A delegation representing the C.C.L. unions in the province of Quebec met the premier of the province and proposed a national labour code.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the hon. member think that is popular in Quebec?


Fred Rose: This delegation, speaking on behalf of organized labour, made that proposal to the premier.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member does not really mean that?


Fred Rose: I sincerely do. It was the opinion of the delegation representing the members of the C.C.L. unions in the province of Quebec. I was not there myself.
I know that all sorts of arguments are generally dragged out in opposition to a national labour code. The constitutional problem is raised. I say that if it is necessary to make changes in our constitution, those changes should be made.
47696-153*
In this atomic age we cannot live in the horse-and-buggy days of 1867. The bogey will be raised in connection with high wages that if you have high wages there will be higher prices and the spiral will start; you know the story which is generally told. We say it is not necessary if you have higher wages to have higher prices, because there has been a great improvement in technical development in this country and also in the skill of the people who operate the machines. Further, there is plenty of surplus profits which could be used without impoverishing a single employer. The statistical summary published by the Bank of Canada reveals that 'profits of Canadian businesses in 1944, after allowing all deductions for taxes, were $416 million, or nearly double what they were in 1936. The same survey states that the accumulated surplus and surplus reserves of 700 companies in 1943 amounted to SI,188 million, compared with $800 million in 1938. So that therp is plenty of room right there for an increase in wages to give purchasing power to the people. It is not enough to give a man a job. The Minister of Reconstruction said a few months ago that there will be a million jobs. Yes, but unless they are jobs at decent wages we shall not have lasting prosperity. The less the purchasing power, the sooner a crash is bound to come. These are plain and simple facts of economics, and they demonstrate why- it is necessary that the wages paid to workers should be adequate.
A word as to the problem of unemployment insurance benefits. Let me point out that $14 or $10 will not make it possible for workers and their families to exist. The present unemployment insurance benefits are quite insufficient. Recently there was a Gallup poll, taken among all types of the population of Canada, in which forty-three per cent agreed that it is necessary to have increased unemployment insurance. Unless a man gets a reasonable unemployment benefit he will be forced to grab a job at low wages. Of course some people do not mind that, in fact it is just up their alley, but as far as the people who have to take these jobs at low wages are concerned, that is not so and the nation as a whole suffers as the result of such a policy. That is why increased unemployment insurance benefits are needed.
I would emphasize that these are things which have to be done. Fine words will not give the people of Canada what they need. Fine words will not fulfil the promises which were made to the men who went overseas to fight and are confronted with the problem to-day of finding a decent job. Fine words
Demobilization-Labour

will solve nothing. What is needed is bolder action by this government, and, particularly by the Department of Labour, and I hope that such action will be taken in order to avoid strikes. Nobody wants strikes if matters can be settled otherwise.
I was not going to say anything about the Japanese problem, but I feel that some remarks on my part will be in order at this time. It is always dangerous when you start "picking against" one group. When it is suggested that some one group is different, and that the people of that group just cannot become Canadians, the next thing we may expect will be attacks upon another group, and'then upon another. Maybe the next time it will be the Italians, or perhaps the Jews. It so happens that I am unable to see what is supposed to make these people so terribly different. I cannot understand why they should be discriminated against as compared with Germans or Italians. Why are the Germans treated differently from the Japanese? Surely the Germans in this country, or at any rate some of them, were as active on behalf of nazi Germany as wTere the Japanese on behalf of Japan, yet nobody would suggest that the Germans should be deported. Is it because of a difference in colour? It is dangerous to start differentiating against any race because of its colour. That is exactly the ideology against which we fought in this war. Speaking on this matter last year, I pointed out, and I want to repeat it to-day, that if we wish to make sure that the Japanese will constitute no problem, no threat to this country, let us eradicate militarism and shintoism, and everything which is rotten in Japan. Let them stand up and say that they do not want the emperor to remain on his job. Let them say that they want to break up the feudal system and take away the land from the wealthy landowners, those who plotted the war, and give it to the people. Give them a real taste of democracy. Let them uproot what is rotten in Japanese life, and the Japanese people here will constitute no problem. It is always bad to treat a problem superficially. That is true of the Japanese question and it is also true of labour relations: we have to get down to the basic issues confronting the people here and elsewhere. Only then shall we be in a position to make solutions which will be in the best interests of the people.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have some difficulty in following the previous speaker. He has an advantage over me: he is the whip, the leader and the critic of his party. But I suggest that possibly he should have stayed with the subject upon which he started at

first, because he may know something about that, and certainly he knows nothing about the Japanese problem.


Fred Rose: May I tell the hon. member that I went out in 193S to Vancouver to give information to the people of that city about Japanese espionage, but I could not get it over the air because the Japanese consul had so much power in Vancouver.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member might be able to give the people of Vancouver some information, but as to the rest of us in British Columbia, I do not. think he can give us information on the Japanese. Upon one point I quite agree with him; that is, when he says that we should assist Japan to gc-t rid of her present system; and if he will come up to my district when he is again in our province, I will see that he gets half an hour on the radio free. When he says that some things could be done to solve the problem by educating Japan, I certainly agree with him. If we want to wipe out imperialism and shintoism I agree that the best way to do so is to educate them. I say to the hon. member for Cartier and to the members of the group immediately opposite me that I think Canadians have done very well in the past in sending missionaries to all these countries which practice cannibalism and every other kind of ism, to try to convert them to democratic ideas. But I also say to my hon. friends across the way, would they tell me any way which would be easier, quicker and cheaper to get 29,000 missionaries to teach Canada's democratic way of life than by sending the Japanese back to Japan to tell their friends about it? I do not think there is any better way. I do not believe that the members of the Liberal and Conservative parties generally wanted to get into this debate, and certainly I had no intention of doing so until I heard what in my opinion was one of the most racial speeches ever delivered in this house since I have been here. That speech was delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I should think any party that claims to have the interests of labour at heart, especially under present conditions, when we read the headlines in the newspapers and think of the struggle that is going on among the ranks of labour, would have addressed itself to the problems of labour instead of discussing the subject that has been brought up. But so far only two members of that party have tried to contribute anything to the welfare of labour, at least as far as I can see. One of them is the hon. member

Demobilization-Labour
for Qu'Appelle and the other the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who always earnestly, conscientiously, and I think brilliantly, defends labour.
But we did not get any contribution of that kind from the hon. member for Vancouver East. I can understand the position of the members of that party, however, and even the position of the Progressive Conservative party. They are not very strong-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They are getting better all the time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You need to get a good deal better. However, I would say to the Liberals and the Conservatives that perhaps we should adopt something of the policy of the C.C.F. and prepare for the future, because there will be elections coming on again not only in four years' time but in eight years, twelve years, sixteen years and so on. Possibly one of the reasons my friends of the C.C.F. are planning their programme as they are is this very fact. At least, according to the Vancouver Daily Province, a responsible newspaper, they may be looking to the future for votes, because I see by the Province of October 4, 1944, the headline, "Possible solution to Jap problem; C.C.F. suggests intermarriage." Maybe that is the solution for the future from the point of view of votes. The newspaper io which I am referring gives a report of a meeting, and I see that at that meeting a suggestion was made which perhaps proposes one way in which they might be able to get a class of voters who would endorse some of their policies. One speaker at that meeting suggested:
If one hundred o-f the best white boys were married to one hundred of the best Japanese girls they would have a product Canada would be proud of.
What a suggestion!


An hon. MEMBER:: Who said that?


George Alexander Cruickshank: A C.C.F. speaker at a C.C.F. meeting in the city of Vancouver. That may be one way of getting satisfactory voters in the future, and it may be one reason why in Saskatchewan only two of the Japanese have been asked to be sent back to Japan. I do not know.
I almost wept last night when the hon. member for Vancouver East told us about the old Japanese father. I am not trying in any way to poke fun at this poor old Japanese father, because I admire any father, of any race, who expresses a wish to see his son before he dies. But, as I say, I almost wept when the hon. gentleman, told us of this dear old Japanese in British Columbia who before his death was so anxious to have his son visit him
and who was unfortunately comforted only by the return of his daughter. Well, I thought of some of the mothers in my own riding who to-day have not yet got Their sons back from Hong Kong because those boys are in hospitals. I thought of other mothers in my riding whose sons will never return, and then I did not weep so much.
I am not. one of those who are afraid to speak of atrocities when we hear all this claptrap about such dear, delightful Japanese men who are so loyal to Canada and! who must not be sent back. I heard the leader of the C.C.F. party, perhaps rightly, defend the league of nations, but I would like him to check up on some of the -actions of the. league of nations after the last war when they moved hundreds of thousands of Greeks, Turks and Armenians from their own native land. I have not heard so much from my hon. friends of the C.C.F. about Russia whose system they so proudly boast of. Perhaps I am treading on dangerous ground when I talk about international affairs, but I have not heard so much about those people who were taken from Poland, from their own country, and moved elsewhere. Not a word about them.-
I should like to say a word with reference to my friend the hon. member for Koptenay West, because he is a good friend of mine. He has the advantage of rooming next door to me. -He is something like the hon. member for Cartier, because he is in a sort of no-man's land, in a party of his own. He has the- great advantage of having been a Liberal in the past, and I forgive him a good deal because I do not think he knows anything about the Japanese problem. If he is so anxious to have them in his riding there will be no quarrel in Fraser Valley should his wish be fulfilled. I would point out, however, that prior to Pearl Harbor and the evacuation of the Japanese from the coast, there was exactly one Jap in his riding. I also had some of those letters from people in -his riding, from the ghost towns where merchants were bankrupt until, the Japs moved in. I had letters from certain organizations. I can understand the interior saw mills wanting cheap Jap labour, but I do not understand the remarks we have heard, from people with reference to that terrible word, not leprosy, but capitalism. Let me quote something from the Vancouver Sun-if you can quote from two good papers like these, you will get your name in both to-mo-rrow. I quote the following:
We, the undersigned Canadian-born Japanese
I have not the time to read the whole of this article, but I want the committee to mark

Demobilization-Labour
those words, "Canadian-born Japanese". A little further on they are referred to as "loyal and patriotic Japanese", and further on still:
... we Japanese people regard our imperial family as divine and whose sanctity is inviolable. A recent editorial in the Vancouver Sun, unjustly condemning the peaeedoving imperial Japanese of militarism . . .
This is from Japanese, and I can give their signatures if necessary. I quote again:
If the Canadian public in general had kept their eyes open during the recent visit of Prince and Princess Chichihu they would have observed that no Japanese looked down on the august procession of their imperial highnesses from the windows above, so great is our respect for the divine persons of our imperial family.
This is from loyal Canadian Japanese.
That no objection was made-
Mark that.
-to Canadians- and other foreigners from doing so was merely a concession on the part of the Japanese people concerning those who do not as yet fully -appreciate their highly patriotic feelings.
Lower down I read:
We Japanese are a proud and sensitive people, and the imperial Japanese empire has a way of dealing' with those people and nations who show their insincerity by disregarding and flouting our most sacred sentiments and feelings.
A threat of what they would have done to us! I do not want to go into details. The hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for New Westminster have given the opinion of the people of British Columbia, supported !by vote a short time ago in the provincial election, when the most influential members of the C.C.F. party in British Columbia fell by the wayside, including one who, as the hon. member for Vancouver East knows better than I do, has two-thirds of the brains of the C.C.F. party in that province. Unfortunately she fell by the wayside in that election. Why? Because the people of British Columbia do not and-I impress this upon the government-will not allow the return of the Japanese.
I wish to say one thing to the government and I absolutely agree in this with the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Vancouver South; when you get south and east together, Fraser Valley can get in the middle It is time for the government to state what they are going to do about this agreement. Only two members from eastern Canada have told me they disagree with our stand on the Japanese question,, and those two were from Ontario. I should like to ask them a question. I am not going to look at them because I do not want their ' constituents to know to whom I am referring, but they sit over there. Only two members

said that they would like the Japanese in their district. I am going to suggest to the premier from my own province that when he comes to the conference on the 26th, he use as one of the bargaining powers, before he makes -any further concessions to Quebec or Ontario, a demand from the Prime Minister of Canada an official and final stand as to where Canada stands on the Japanese question. It is time we did that. We are not trying to wish them on you people; we think they should go back to Japan, but we are definitely saying it is a federal and dominion responsibility now and you people must accept your responsibility on the matter. If you do not want them here that is your privilege, but when the Minister of Labour says that we have no agreement with the province of Quebec, and when we remember that the province of Quebec has one-third of the population of Canada and only 671 Japanese, it is time that something was done.
On the elevator last night one hon. member from New Brunswick asked me what a Japanese looked like. He said that he had never seen one in his life. It is time they had a few there. You do not want them; that is the point. Then, see that we do not get them. The city of Toronto has a larger population than the whole province of British Columbia. They refuse to accept them; yet I am asked to go back to the taxpayers of British Columbia, who do not get paid federal money on federally owned land, and justify why we spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in trying to beautify this town. If you spent ten million dollars you would still only have the parliament buildings. Karsh and some bad restaurants. I am not objecting to spending that money, but when I find the capital of Canada will not accept anjr of their share, then I say we from British Columbia are justified in asking private members from all parts of the Dominion of Canada to stand by us.
We do not approach the matter from the racial hatred point of view; we have none for the Japanese. Hon. members may think it is racial hatred, but we put up with some of the rest of you people in Canada. We are asking you people to take your own fair share of the problem; we shall take ours, if needs be.
I should like to say this: Probably for the first time in the history of British Columbia are, not one hundred per cent-I will not say that-but in spite of the C.C.F., at least ninety-four per cent unanimous on this problem. Do not think for one minute that every person who voted for the C.C.F. party in British Columbia is in favour of their stand on the Japanese question. I know they are

Demobilization-Labour
not and the C.C.F. members know they are not. There are too many fine men and women in British Columbia who belong to the C.C.F. party to endorse any such ridiculous attitude as that. We know that we have ninety-four per cent of the people of British Columbia behind us. We British Columbia members, Liberals and Conservatives, are warning the government and the members of parliament that no longer will British Columbia be pushed around on the Japanese problem.


Mr. LOW:: I hesitated quite a long time before deciding to take part in this debate on the estimates of the Minister of Labour; but several phases of both problems which have been mentioned prominently here since last evening I believe it would be wise for us to have placed before the committee. I am not going to take very much time in placing two matters quite firmly before hon. members to-night for their consideration. Before I do so, however, I Should like to say this; I have gone carefully over the report submitted last night by the Minister of Labour, and I must say that reading the report, and having a knowledge of some of the things that he has been doing over the years, I must congratulate him on a job well done. I know he has a very difficult position to fill, and I do not intend to complicate it at all by anything I shall say here to-night. Rather it is my hope that I shall be able to give a suggestion or two which might help. First, I wish to deal briefly with the Japanese problem, chiefly because for a good many years I have been familiar with the problem, and also because as minister of education of Alberta it was I who insisted on having written into the agreement between the British Columbia security commission and our department that clause which requires that the Japanese shall be resettled after the war.
Certainly I have no prejudice against the Japanese; I have no hatred; but I know their problem, and I want to present three or four facts for the consideration of hon. members so that they will understand a little better what the government is trying to do, and the problem the government faces.
I recall many years ago, when a sugar factory was first established in the town of Raymond, Alberta, that the beet growers brought to this country, particularly into southern Alberta, a good many Japanese. They thought they were getting cheap labour, and they did. For a number of years the Japanese did the field work. They did it cheaply and they did it well. They lived in the community in harmony and at peace; they bothered nobody. They increased in numbers; their birth rate was high. They
established a Buddhist church in the community of Raymond. They brought the Buddhist priest into the community and he taught the people. I went into that community as a school-teacher and I taught the boys and girls, the sons and daughters of the original Japanese settlers. They were in every class that I had in high school in all the years that I was there. From them I learned to know some of their problems. I met their fathers and their mothers. I saw and observed the work they were doing on the farms.
In the years between 1902 and 1926 the original Japanese settlers who came in as cheap labour showed exactly what Japanese can do. Not only were they cheap labour to begin with, but they lived so economically and with such care, every one of the family working industriously in the fields, from the little child up to the grandmother; out in the fields labouring among the beets, that by 1925 and 1926 they owned the land and the white people in the community were working for them. That became a problem, because just as soon as a group of people like that, who are considered to be a non-assimilable minority, form a community, as they will form a community in order to find happiness -and we do not deny them the right to seek happiness and abundant living; that is their right-but whenever they congregate into communities and they try to live their own lives in their own communities and come into conflict with the white people in the field of labour and in the ownership of the best land in the district, it is inevitable that bad feeling will arise. I saw that feeling gradually rise higher and higher. Eventually there grew up in the community between 600 and 1,200 of these people, and they constituted a real problem. In all of the time I lived in that section of the country, I can recall only one Japanese who ever married into a white family-just one, in all those years. So that when we talk about intermarriage, I think it is pure stupidity. It just does not happen in this country.
I shall make just one reference to the one family where there was intermarriage with the whites. The children became outcasts on both sides, and unhappiness resulted.
One thing further I wish to mention. By the time war broke out and a serious situation had developed in British Columbia, the government set up what was known as the British Columbia security commission. At that time we had a real problem in Alberta, particularly in the southern part of the province. As hon. members will recall, the provincial government was up against the necessity of taking action
Dc mobilization-Labour

in connection with another minority group which had proved to be non-assimilable in that province. Those were the Hutterites. In order to save those people from being burned out of their homes, their barns and their belongings, we had to put through what was known as the land sales prohibition act. Having taken the stand that we would help these people, and that we would preserve peace, order and good government in the southern part of the province, we found ourselves up against the federal authorities who had brought those people in under a special dispensation. The federal government disallowed our land sales prohibition act and left us without the means of protecting these people. The Hutterites had established themselves in communities. They had grown in numbers in those communities or, as they were called, colonies. Their birthrate was such that every now and again they would have to swarm, like bees, and they would go into another section of the country a short distance away. With their accumulated communal savings they were able to buy up the best land in the province. The people in the country began to get vexed, because their sons were overseas fighting to preserve what is best in our way of life, and offering themselves up as a sacrifice for those things; and while they were away the older folks could not work the land, with the result that the Hutterites would buy it up, with cash-they would pay good prices- and in this way obtain the best land in the country. Alberta's people found it necessary to ask their government to put through a law which would prohibit the buying of further land by those people for the duration of the war.
The same was -true of the Japanese. They were getting hold of the best land. They were moving in, in a communal way. Their labours were such and their standard of living so low that they could save money. They. can outdo a white man any time in saving, because of their simple wants, and they can accumulate gradually until they own a place.
That is the situation we faced. There was no wonder the authorities in Alberta insisted upon having written into the agreement between the British Columbia security commission and the government of the province that clause which requires resettlement of the Japanese when the war is over. I believe we have about 2,800 of them.


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe the figure is 3,6S0.


Solon Earl Low: I am speaking particularly of those who were brought in by the commission. They have constituted a real problem ever since they came in, not because of their law-

lessness, not because they do not mind their own business and not because they are not good workers-because they are. They are splendid workers, in every respect. My sympathy goes out to them. They are good people. I know-.
This is the situation, as I observe it. In southern Alberta the white people treated those Japanese with the utmost respect and decency. The first time I visited those people, in the capacity of minister of education of the province, I went into the schools and found out how they were getting along. Some of the Japanese boys and girls said to me, "This is, the first time we have ever been accepted in a community, the first time we have been allowed to go to dances and to enjoy ourselves with the other children in the schools." But one could see that they were not happy.
The problem, however, was that, as they came in from British Columbia, the Japanese became the preponderant group in many of the school classes. Now, if they are to be allowed to stay in Alberta, all of those communities in southern Alberta will, without question, become Japanese. What are we going to do about it? Japanese teachers in the schools; Japanese professionals? It is inevitable that the white people in these communities would gradually have to move out because, as I say, the Japanese are nonassimilable with the whites. They do not wish to mix with the whites. I am not taking the white man's side of it. But many of those boys and girls did tell me this: "We are not happy".
Why? There is a right good reason, and we should take note of it. This has not been mentioned to-night in all the debate. Any time you have in your country a non-assimilable minority, those people cannot be happy because eventually they will build up an inferiority complex. A racial inferiority complex can end in only one thing, and that, is racial prejudice and hatred. That is the problem we have to face, more than, anything else.
They have a right to happiness; they are seeking happiness. My judgment is that we in Canada have the responsibility, in the first place of bringing them here and of settling them here; and it is our responsibility to see to it that everything is done to help them find happiness. I think the only place where they can find happiness is among their own kind. When I say that I mean no disrespect to them. But get them among their own people. It seems to me we can afford to help them get back to their native land, back among their own, and help them to reestablish themselves over there. If it is necessary, after

Demobilization-Labour
thej'' get back there, I for one will press for assistance to come from this country to help them to live-if it is necessary, as long as they live.
I think that is the Christian way of looking at the matter. I know there are quite a number of Canadian citizens among those people, and I do not want to see them mistreated or treated in a non-Christian way. But I do <say that my observation of the problem leads me to the conclusion that they can never be happy as long as they are a minority among white people.
I think that is about all I wish to say on that subject. I appreciate the position in which the minister is placed. So far as I am concerned-and I believe I can speak for this group-we are very happy to be able to help him in trying to find a solution. But we in turn would like to 'have some assurance on the question of where Alberta will be when this situation is cleared up.
Now', in conclusion,, I have a question to ask. When the British Columbia security commission moved those Japanese out of the coastal area, some 3,000 were brought to Alberta. We received them, end did everything1 we could to treat them decently. There is no race prejudice out there in any part of the province. But, as I said, we did insist upon that clause being written into the contract, that they would be resettled elsewhere after the war. I would ask the minister to make a note of this, and when he speaks to give us an answer: Since British Columbia has determined quite definitely that it will not receive them again-and quite rightly so;
I must admit that I agree with them-and since the Prime Minister on August 4. 1944, suggested that in his opinion they should not be allowed once more to concentrate in British Columbia-and this was quoted last night by the minister-then referring to those Japanese who under the announced policy of the department prefer to stay in Canada, and who will be allowed to stay in Canada, will the minister please tell us where he will take them?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the $64 question.


Solon Earl Low: I do not know what the position is in Saskatchewan, but from what I have heard to-night I would suggest that that is where they should be put. I will just leave that question with the minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: They will drive out the C.C.F.


Solon Earl Low: There is another matter I should like to refer to just briefly.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not the $64 question; that is the jackpot.


Solon Earl Low: I should like to speak for a moment or two on the general labour situation in order to clarify the position which my group takes regarding labour problems. Last night I sat in this committee and listened with great interest to the hon. member for Calgary West. I deeply appreciated the splendid spirit in which he gave his address. As I said, he ought to be made a judge because of that speech.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would be too much of a loss to parliament.


Solon Earl Low: It would be, but eventually that should happen. He does not have to pay me a commission for getting him that judgeship. Speaking seriously, however, he made a great contribution to this debate. The minister also made a real contribution when he laid this whole report before us as the basis of this discussion. As I listened to the debate, on the technical questions of union security and the check-off and about the negotiations between labour and employer, I wandered if we were not skating around and around the real core of the problem and trying to keep as far away from it as we could.
I quite agree with hon. members who have spoken that eventually we must find a solution to this demand on the part of labour for union security. We must give them every opportunity to bargain collectively, and we must see to it that every protection is given them in their great fight. I have sympathy for them, and I want the members of the committee to understand that this group stands ready to help labour in all these matters. I am not so sure exactly what is the solution of the whole problem of union security, careful as I have been in listening to the hon. member for Calgary West and other hon. members. But there is one phase I should like to discuss briefly.
Labour unrest in this country is not concentrated entirely around union security; it is not concentrated entirely around the checkoff or collective bargaining. In my judgment there are two things which are causing labour unrest more than anything else. First, of course, is agitation. Everybody knows there is plenty of that and everybody knows -pretty well where it is coming from. I am satisfied that there are some members who are perhaps within sound of my voice who may know more about that than I do.
It seems to me that of all people in our country, labour is the most realistic. Labouring people are realistic, because they have to go out day after day and get right down at the root of things and grub out a living with their hands. They know what it means to face difficulties. They know the problems of

Demobilization-Labour

industry. They can see which way the wind is blowing. Do not overlook the fact that labour can see what the trends are in our modern way of living. For example, I can assure you sir, that the labouring men of this country have the knowledge that we in Canada have discovered a vast reservoir of modern productive forces which is likely in due course to remove from the productive effort very large numbers of the men in this country. Let me just enlarge on that for a moment.
We have already developed in Canada electrical energy the equivalent of 450 million man-power. We have that power to turn the wheels of industry and put comforts and amenities into the homes of Canada's twelve million people. But there is still tremendous undeveloped power. I understand that that electrical energy to the equivalent of 450 million man-power which is already developed represents. only one-third of our potential. What can happen when the other two-thirds are developed?
Most of these electrical men can. work for from one-tenth to one one-hundredth of a cent an hour, day in and day out, year in and year out. On the other hand it requires a minimum of forty-five cents an hour for the average labouring man to keep body and soul together. If we keep on technologically improving our industries and our productive efforts we shall come to the point where we shall be throwing our potential man-power, our human beings, into competition with those 450 million electrical men. What is the solution of the problem? Labouring men see that.
The second thing which labouring men see and which they face squarely is that within their younger days man-power used to be the sole productive force. To-day labour sees that man-power has a changing role; instead of being the sole productive force it is merely the controlling force. One man is able to control the equivalent of thousands of .men. My mind goes back to the day when my dad said to me, "Look here, son, I want you to start this summer to dig the basement to our home; that will be your contribution to the family dwelling." He gave me the old nags, a plough, a scraper, a shovel, a pick and a wagon and he put me at it. That was the summer I was eighteen, years of age. All summer long I worked, and at the end I had the basement dug and ready.
It was not very long ago that I stood in my backyard in Edmonton one Saturday afternoon and watched a man come in to the lot next to mine driving a caterpillar tractor with a string of equipment. He set to work, and in just 
four and a half hours he had dug the basement to a fine home. I thought then, "By George, I was born forty years too soon."


Arthur Leroy Smith: He was faster than you were.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, he was, but he did not work any ha'rder. He wmre .blisters on a different place than I did.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am told they hurt more there.


Solon Earl Low: That is right, but it hurt my feelings when I thought of what I had had1 to go through. The point I wanted, to make is this: Here was one man who could sit there cool as a cucumber and enjoy- the whole process of doing the work of a great many men. So it is all through industry, and labour sees this trend. This is what they ask themselves: In the course of the war when we had only eighty per cent of our man-power available for productive enterprise in this country, we were able to bring our total national production up to something around $10,000 million, which is nearly three times what it was before the war. If we could do that during the war with only eighty per cent of our man-power, when the others come back from the armed services and from our essential war industry and want to go into the productive effort for peace time, what are we going to do with them? That is what they are worrying about to-day. How are they going to get jobs? Of course the C.C.F. say that they are going to give full employment, and I saw some of the Liberal party's posters on some of the buildings throughout the west promising jobs for everybody.


An hon. MEMBER:: They have taken them down.


Solon Earl Low: Labour is wondering whether the political parties which have been promising jobs for everybody actually mean what they say, because they see a situation developing in which man-power is assuming more and more the role of a controlling force, and they are convinced down in their souls that never again will the total potential man-power of this country be required to do the ordinary chares of production, no matter what standard of living we want to attain for our people. That being the case, labour is certainly not at rest. It is wondering where it is going to get off, and therefore labour becomes easy pickings for the agitators, who can easily stir them up and get them into a restless ferment.
Here comes my suggestion, for I do not want just to bring this matter before the committee without offering some suggestion. It is time that wp all in the parliament of Canada say

Demobilization-Labour
to the people of this country and to labour particularly: There is no question about what we can do in the production field. We can, if we are supported by the people of this country, organize a production programme that will guarantee to every person in Canada a decent standard of living, and that is what we are determined to do.
The second thing we want to do is this, and I think we should have started out to do it twenty-five years ago. In our educational structure we should be preparing the people for leisure time, preparing them so that when the day of leisure comes they will be able to use it wisely and exercise the responsibilities that go along with it. But we have failed to do that. It seems to me that if we declare that to the country, that we are determined to see to it that our production is kept high, and that we mean to see that that high production is distributed equitably among the people so that every one of them can enjoy an abundant living in this country, we can set at rest the feeling of unrest and insecurity anomg the labour people.
Next we should say to them this: In order to make it possible for as many people to work as can work in this country we are going to start in at both ends of the supply of labour and remove some from the top and some from the bottom, so that those who a.re left may find work, so that there will not be such terrific competition for jobs. That was the reason for my asking the suggestion I did in the debate on the speech from the throne.
I said then, although I do not enjoy quoting myself, because I am no authority


William Ross Macdonald: Under the rules I do not think the hon. member can quote even his own speech.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will say this: I believe that we are going to come to the time when it will be absolutely essential in the interests of the Canadian people to lower the pensionable age of our aged and to increase the amount of the pension to' a decent standard, and I have always stated that it must not be less than $50 a month. I contend that the absolute necessity of this will become more and more apparent as we develop into an unemployment problem in the Dominion of Canada. Why? If we should set out to remove from the labour market all those aged people, let . us say sixty years and over, and give them a decent standard of living, we should reduce competition in the labour field tremendously and make it much easier for those who are left. That will have to be done. I quite well remember the day when a man of forty-five years of age looking for a job was told that 47696-1544
he was too old, and I understand that men to-day are running into the vary same experience. Already men of forty-five years of age are finding it hard to get a job in the labour market, and so I ask, are we really a little bit crazy when we suggest pensioning them off at sixty? That will take some of them out of the labour market and make it easier for the others. It will take some of us out of this House Commons too, but that would not hurt very much. I think people of that age should be put out to pasture and given a good time for the rest of their lives.
But seriously, on the other end of the labour scale we find the young people who, from lack of resources, are forced out of school before their education is finished. Year after year these young people are leaving high school and college because their dads and mothers cannot afford to keep them in school. I have always contended, and rightly, I think, that no capable boy or girl in our land should for lack of money be denied the opportunity of such educational attainment as he or she wishes to go out and get, and has the capacity to take.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Solon Earl Low: If that is true, then it is necessary for us to give careful consideration to establishing scholarships of one form and another to enable these boys and girls to finish their education and to get their training. That is what this group stands for. How it is done, I do not care two hoots; but I want to see it done. Take away these two groups from the competing labour market-the aged, and the young who are forced to leave school to get work, and the pressure on the labour market will be tremendously relieved. I commend that to the government in making their plans for the future.
In conclusion, knowing full well that what I say is true, I am going to make this statement. With resources such as Canada has, labour will never be set at rest again until some such assurances as I have outlined are given to them in this dominion. They are entitled to it. The day is long past due when we should make those declarations to the people of this country, and then set to work to attain them. We never shall accomplish more than we definitely set out to do, and my judgment is that we should set the objective before us right now and get to work in a unified way to accomplish it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I make one suggestion to the committee and I hope that it will not be misconstrued. If there is any possibility of finishing this session before Christmas. I think we should endeavour by
War and Demobilization

cooperation to get this resolution through this evening. We have looked very carefully over the programme ahead, and it is my opinion that unless by consent and cooperation we can dispose of this resolution this evening we shall not be able to have prorogation before Christmas. I leave the matter entirely in the hands of the committee, without the slightest suggestion of dictation, but I do ask the cooperation of every party and group in this house in an endeavour to get this resolution through to-night, reserving to every member all his rights to ask questions when the civil estimates are up for consideration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If that is agreeable there is a slight amendment, purely a formality, to move, which is made necessary by our previous action in alreadj' voting S400.000.000 of this appropriation. I therefore move:
That the words "less the amount provided for by the War Expenditure and Demobilization Appropriation Act. No. 1, 1045, be added after the figures $1,365,000,000 in the first line of paragraph 1 of the said resolution."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the resolution as amended be adopted.


Mr. FLEMING:: May I ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs? He referred to the fact that our right to ask questions was reserved.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is most definitely the case.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are some reports to be brought down by the Minister of Reconstruction.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is well recognized and will be attended to.


Ralph Maybank: Do I understand that a discussion of one or two subjects which are before us now can be continued, not only by asking questions, under civil estimates? Is that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Ralph Maybank: This matter just reopens again.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well, what does not reopen is the appropriation. This will be passed. But any information desired by any hon. member can be obtained on civil supply.


William Ross Macdonald: Does the resolution as amended carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I-


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Chairman, may I rise to a question of privilege? I am quite sure my hon. friend will not deny me this. I was addressing you to make some remarks to the committee when it developed, by reason of two or three questions, that if I did not do so this item would carry. It was by reason of answers which were given and the general attitude of the committee that I desisted from making any remarks on the resolution which is before us. I submit, sir, that if it is not a fact that the resolution is going to carry immediately, I should be allowed, say, five or ten minutes to lay before the committee certain observations which I had desired to make. I feel sure my hon. friend will agree that that is a proper point to take as a question of privilege. But I do not wish to do this if it will hold up the passage of this resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, sir. I have the right to speak. And I will not say that what I am going to say will not be long. I am here; I have the right to speak; and I will speak as much as I want. By the way, what I have to say is only one sentence. I cannot conceive that the treasury has enough money to pay S2.500.000 to deport Japanese when another department, the Department of Mines and Resources, is charging $1,350 for the repatriation of two nuns of Riviere du Loup who have been in a concentration camp in Japan. This I cannot conceive.


Grote Stirling: May I understand the exact position with regard to the Minister of Reconstruction? If this motion carries we pass out of the committee stage and Mr. Speaker returns to the chair. When will the Minister of Reconstruction give the information which he withheld the other evening?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He will answer any questions on the item 6, which will be called.
Resolution as amended agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mitchell thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 172, for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and demobilization.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. MITCHELL moved the second reading of the bill.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the .house to adopt the motion?


Jean-François Pouliot: No; next sitting.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Carried.

Reconstruction and Supply


Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, is the bill printed?	[DOT]	-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Is the bill printed and distributed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Printed.


Grote Stirling: Is the bill printed and distributed?


James Horace King: -I must inform the ho.n. member that the house leader has said that the bill is printed.


Grote Stirling: I think we should not consent to proceeding in the committee stage at the present time without the bill. We can go into committee, if that will facilitate matters, and rise and report progress.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think that is a reasonable request, to have the house go into committee after second reading. The bill, I understand, has not been distributed to hon. members.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Jean-François Pouliot: We have not the bill, and I protest.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre moves that the committee rise and report progress and asks leave to sit again.


Jean-François Pouliot: And I hope that we shall have the bill in both languages.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That will be seen to.
Progress reported.



RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution.
That it is expedient to present to the house a bill to establish a department of government under a minister of the crown to be known as the Department of Reconstruction and Supply to which will be transferred the functions of the Department of Reconstruction and the Department of Munitions and Supply, and that provision be made in the bill for the appointment of a deputy minister and officers, cleiks and emplojrees of the department.
Grote Stirling: This was not mentioned last night, and in conversations which took place to-day we understood that if the other matter were through we should be going into civil estimates.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will be good enough to look up the record he will find that it was stated that we would immediately proceed with the emergency power bill, but on request of my friends opposite we agreed to defer that until to-morrow and therefore we feel free to alter the procedure announced last night.


Grote Stirling: Does the minister propose to make a statement at this stage?


Mr. HOWE:: Yes.
. Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.	-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is my hope that we can consider the resolution and advance it to the point where the bill can be distributed and the main discussion can take place on the bill. In the speech from the throne it was announced that the government planned1 to introduce a bill for the consideration of the house for the purpose of merging the Department of Munitions and. Supply and the Department of Reconstruction into a single department of reconstruction and supply. The purpose of doing so will appeal to all hon. members. We have at the present time two departments, the work of which overlaps to a considerable extent, each of which has a statutory organization, a minister and a deputy minister and certain officers that are required by any department. One department is winding up its work gradually and reducing its strength, and the other is building up its staff to some little extent, but the same type of staff is needed1 for each department.
Frankly, my trouble in attempting to operate two departments is that I cannot find sufficient senior _ staff to man both departments. Almost from the origin of the Department of Reconstruction I have been having part of my staff doing double duty. There has been one post in Munitions and Supply under one title and a second post in the Department of Reconstruction under another title.
Even that is becoming difficult. H the departments can be iperged we shall reduce the double statutory offices into a single list of offices, and we shall use the man-power of both departments to much better advantage. It is becoming more and more obvious that the efficiency of both operations would be
Reconstruction and Supply


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the minister correctly, and I may not have understood him, this is a revolutionary bill. I could not possibly support any such measures as this in peace time. During the war the minister was given a free hand and did a very good job, but we cannot agree to this in any shape, manner or form now that the war is over and we are at peace. Did I understand the minister to say that the department would have the right to give contracts for works of one kind and another?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then I am 100 per cent opposed to it. I am absolutely and wholly 100 per cent opposed to any department having the right to engage men and carry on jobs. Is my understanding correct that the department can carry on jobs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All that is being asked is the right to make contracts under the authority' of the governor in council and to disburse appropriations made by this parliament. All departments of government have that authority. This is nothing new. The work of the Department of Munitions and Supply' was restricted to contracts for war supplies and war purposes. The Department of Reconstruction has no special authority allowing it to place contracts. However, it is quite conceivable that in connection with the work of reconstruction the department will be called upon to place contracts on behalf of the government, as it has in the past placed contracts for war purposes. The purpose of the bill is to give us that authority whether it is ever exercised or not.
Reconstruction and Supply


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is what I understood the minister to say. Of course during the war the minister had to have extraordinary powers. The war had to be prosecuted; we had to win the war. To lose the war would have meant perhaps the loss of our whole country. Naturally the minister did award all sorts of contracts for the construction of factories and so forth for the prosecution of the war. The public supported that. But now we are in peace time. During the last couple of years I for one, and I suppose there were others, have been persuading the government and the minister, because his name was mentioned as Minister of Reconstruction, to have plans and specifications ready to proceed with what should be done. In my fondest hopes for rehabilitation I never expected that any department would itself carry on the work. For instance, I inferred that under this bill, which is said to be a rehash of the war bill, the department could carry on such a work as at) irrigation project in the west, engage all the men to do the job and everything connected therewith. Well, I would not support anything like that in peace time. I will support the minister in awarding contracts, after tenders are called, for the works to be done. I will not support the government itself doing the work, engaging employees to do the work, and itself building the various work they may have in mind. I want to lend my support as strongly as I can to the projection of works of every description to give employment. That is the main thing we all have before us. I believe my experience with labour in big projects of every description gives me some foresight in what we are facing.
I wonder if hon. members realize what this country is facing, as far as unemployment is concerned. What about the minister's own city? The acting mayor of Fort William said yesterday that there are 4,950 out of work there. He did say, of course, that many of them came from the west, and that they have no intention of going back. Well, you cannot make people go back when they will not go. He says that they will not go into the woods; and, again, you cannot make them go into the woods if they do not wish to go there.
But people must have work; they must have jobs. I had hoped that the minister would come in with a big programme already prepared with the plans and specifications ready. There was plenty of time to do so; there was plenty of time to prepare plans and specifications for scores of works, to have tenders called on them and to be ready to let the contracts. It is immaterial to me who gets those contracts, so long as they are let. Then 
let the contractors carry on. But if the government does the work, every job will cost twice as much as it should. I am not in favour of this, if I have rightly interpreted what the minister has said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am afraid my hon. friend has not interpreted it correctly. The old Department of Munitions and Supply Act authorized the minister to place contracts for defence projects. Obviously, in preparing a new bill at this stage the word "defence" should not be there. Unless the minister loses all power to call for tenders and accept tenders on any project, that paragraph should be deleted-if it is the desire of the committee. If the minister is to have any power to call for tenders and award contracts for reconstruction projects, the word "defence" should be deleted. That is the only change, made in the bill. My hon. friend seems to think the Minister of Reconstruction is going into the contracting business, and handling work with day labour. I can assure him that- that is not so, and that no such authority is given to the minister by the proposed change in the wording of the Munitions and Supply Act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have visited a great many of the factories built during the war. The factory business has been my life.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They were practically all built by contractors.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But the minister knows as well as I do, that because of the war those works had to be rushed rapidly-nobody knows that better than the minister, because he was a contractor himself. Each factory- perhaps I should not say "each factory", but in the aggregate they all cost a lot more than they should have cost, because of the speed with which they had to be rushed.
Is it proposed under this bill to carry on civilian works-what I will call civilian works or peace-time works-in the same manner, at three times, twice, or one and a half times what they should cost?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Perhaps I can explain it in this'W'ay: As Minister of Transport some years ago I had certain powers to award contracts. Contracts were awarded for harbour improvements and for certain types of work carried on- by the Department of Transport. This gives me exactly the same powers, but in a different field, if the government should decide that the Department of Reconstruction should award contracts for reconstruction projects. Perhaps the government will not decide to do that. However, I am not setting the policy. I am simply saying that in combining the Department of Munitions and Supply Act

Reconstruction and Supply
with the Department of Reconstruction Act- which this bill purports to do-the words "defence projects" should be eliminated, because you and I both hope that there will not be any defence projects for some considerable time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As I understand it, the department will have plans and specifications for jobs A. B, C and D, et cetera; and that tenders will be called. The successful contractor, if he is qualified to do the work- and I think he should be qualified; I am not in favour of awarding contracts to the lowest tenderer, if he is not qualified to do the job-will geit the work. But if the engineers in the department consider that a certain contractor has all the qualifications and the equipment required to do the job, and he is also the lowest tenderer, he will get the job?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: One further question:
The department itself, under its own men, engaged by itself, is not going to carry on any construction work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not so long as I am minister.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to make a few' general observations on this resolution. The observations I am going to make ought to be palatable, indeed, to the minister; but whether they will be or not remain to be seen.
I believe that this bill will put two jobs, each of which requires the ablest and most industrious man we can possibly find, on the shoulders of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, and I believe it is making a fool out of the business of reconstruction. The job of reconstruction is one of great importance. It is a job, above all, which requires a. man who will have time to think and to plan, who will not have the day-to-day and hour-to-hour decisions- which the present minister has to make. That is my conception of it.
In this connection I should like to repeat what the Prime Minister said at the time this department was organized. In passing, may I say that I ask the minister to believe that, however much he may disagree with me, this is sincerely said, because I earnestly believe he is at present attempting to do what no human being can do.
In describing the duties of the minister the Prime Minister said this:
He w'ill continue to administer the department of which he is now the head.
The Prime Minister said that the department will fade away. I would remind the minister of the old lines about the soldier
who fades away and gradually dies. But they often live a long time before they die. I will remind the minister later that he gave us a list of fifteen enterprises which are still under his control. They may be in process of liquidation, but they are not yet liquidated.
Let me now read what the Prime Minister said:
He will also have the special duty of meeting with experts on reconstruction-
And this was in June, 1944.
-of meeting with a committee of the cabinet which will be composed of ministers who will also be expected to give their time and thought to the formulating of plans related to reconstruction, and to seeing that these plans are carried out. As part of his duty there will be also the obligation of keeping himself informed with respect to what has been and is being done by the provinces) and municipalities, and, as far as it may be possible through consultation with them, and in other ways, of seeking to combine in the most effective way the work of reconstruction of the federal government _ and of the provincial governments and municipalities.
I hope people will not think I am splitting hairs. I am talking about this because I regard this reconstruction job as a job of terrific importance. I think that particularly those of us who believe in private enterprise should regard it as particularly important. If this appears paradoxical to any of my hon. friends to the left, let me put it frankly to them that I believe that the government has certain tasks, important tasks to discharge, and that it. must give regulation, guidance and stimulus, if we may call it that.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Provided that the purchasing power is there.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have read what
the Prime Minister outlined as to the duties to be carried out by the Minister of Reconstruction. In England they have one of the ablest men produced in the war, Lord Woollton, giving them his whole time. His work is also mentioned in the Prime Minister's speech. It is a job where a man has to -have time to study and think.
It was only the night before last, I believe, that the minister told us of the companies still on hand. I know many of them are liquidated, and others are in process of liquidation, But he will agree with me that a company which is in process of liquidation needs a lot of time and thought given to it as well. We must not forget that the minister has the T.-C.A. on his hands and perhaps other things of which I know nothing.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wartime Housing.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There were the fifteen companies he mentioned the night before

Reconstruction and Supply
last. This conjoining of these departments . under one minister is a matter of real importance. I do not care how great a man the minister is, in my opinon he cannot possibly do these two jobs. Above all, this job of reconstruction demands some leisure on the part of the minister, and I doubt if the minister ever has ten minutes between appointments from morning to night. He has told us of the difficulty of getting men.
Turning aside for a moment, I should like to remind the minister of a couple of lamentable cases of people having too many jobs, one in literature and the other in history. We all know about our friend, Pooh-Bah who had such a wide range of jobs and who was threatened with death by boiling in oil. I am not so sure whether he got that. Then there was also the historical, case of Mr. Mussolini; he had far too many jobs, and I know the minister well remembers that he 'came to a most untimely end.	'
Speaking seriously, and not forgetting what one hon. gentleman to my left said the other day when he told us that we could never make the minister change his mind, I hope that what I am saying will register in some way, because I am convinced, that these two jobs cannot be done together. Surely there is some man of capacity sitting among all those bright faces we see over there who can bring some ability to this job, so that the present minister will not have to carry such an overwhelming load.
Let me recapitulate what I have said. This job is vital to the country and it needs all the time of one man. If any man can cover what the Prime Minister has outlined, I am ready to give him full marks. As I say, it demands all the time of one man, and I submit that the welfare of this country-demands that it be arranged in that way. What has that man to do? He will have to deal with the liquidation of these companies, and some of them are very large ventures which will not liquidate in a hurry. Wartime Housing will not be liquidated overnight. War Assets will not be liquidated overnight, nor will Polymer and a good many others. If this thing is done I venture to predict that in a year or two the minister will say, "If I only had had time to do this, that and the other, I could have done a better job." This is a big job and1, if it is carried on in this way,
I believe it will be impossible for any man to do it.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I was just going to add a word to what the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has said. I think this is a distinctly bad move for Canada. We have had before
fMr. Macdonnell.]
us the war appropriation, and we can see now that it is a full-time job for anyone to clean up the Department of Munitions and Supply; even War Assets alone is almost a full-time job. The manner in which that has been handled has unnecessarily cost the taxpayers of this country millions of dollars a month. The department should1 be revamped.
We have been making requests in committees, but I suppose we cannot discuss those matters at this particular time. There is, however, one matter I wish to bring up right now. Back in 1942 the ministers of government promise*! that the men being discharged would be given first priority on the purchase of army or government equipment. For instance, those who settled on the land would have a priority to purchase automobiles, station wagons, tractors and other equipment that might be disposed of. We were told that in 1942, in 1943 and in 1944, but to-day no priority exists for any ex-service man from any of the three branches.
I have in mind1 a young chap who has been freshly discharged. He informs me that a few weeks back he interviewed the officials in War Assets, but they told him -that they had received no instructions regarding priority on the sale of equipment to any ex-service person over a civilian. That is a most disappointing thing at this stage. It is proof that they are falling down.
I have another request which I should like to read to the committee, and I have no doubt that the minister has received similar requests from departments of education across Canada. This telegram reads:
J. A. Ross, M.P.
Will you kindly urge on behalf of the Manitoba school trustees association that the War Assets Corporation turn over all instructional equipment and material to the educational authorities throughout the dominion for use in the schools,
Robt. Love,
Secretary.
I am sure not a member of this committee will object to that request being met, and I know not a taxpayer would object to that equipment being handled in that way. I think every taxpayer in Canada would support that request of the trustees of my province.
I have no doubt the other provinces have made similar requests.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have one right here.


James Arthur Ross: I urge the minister to give thought to matters of this kind. I am sure he will not rise in his place and object to our request that discharged men and women from the different armed forces be granted priorities for equipment which might

Reconstruction and Supply__'
be useful in their reestablishing themselves in civil life. But nothing has been done about the requests which have been made by the minister's colleagues in the cabinet and by others in the past few days, the past few months and the past few years. Let me repeat that the minister's colleagues assured us as far back as 1942 that these prorities would be granted.
This certainly is a big job. The minister and his department would more than earn the gratitude of this country if they did a proper job in dismantling the war set-up and thus save millions, if not billions of money for the taxpayers of Canada. This job of reconversion will be a tremendous one. I am sorry to have to say that there is unemployment in many cities throughout this country, despite the promises that were made to the people a few months ago. Provincial and municipal governments have been preparing plans for the post-war, but they have now been told by the federal government that nothing of that kind will be done until there is a depression. That may be good business but, as my colleague so well pointed out, it will require a minister with a gigantic imagination, one who is able to work out proper plans for the future of this country.
The leader of the Social Credit group referred to-night to the mechanized labour which will displace thousands of our workmen. That should demonstrate to the minister and the members of this committee the thinking and planning that need to be done in this country for many weeks and months in the future.
It is an idle gesture to say that this one department can dismantle the war effort of the Department of Munitions and Supply and also give proper consideration to the setting up of a Department of Reconstruction and Supply. Divide the two and give a new and younger minister charge of it, a man with imagination, a man who probably has had some experience as to what requires to be done. I am inclined to think that for the next eighteen months or two years we shall have a most uncertain period. I would hope that this bill would be reconsidered by the minister and his colleagues. No attempt should be made to pass it at this time. There is no matter which is entitled to as much consideration as this Department of Reconstruction. I am sure it will be called upon in the months and years ahead to do more for the welfare of the people of Canada than any other department of government. I trust that before this department is set up, the minister will come to an early decision on
these two points which are of great interest to many people from coast to coast in Canada and that he will let the people know what his decision is.
Mr. MaclNNIS: I think the committee will agree with the statements made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario and the hon. member for Souris as to the urgent need for a Department of Reconstruction for the serious days that are ahead. But after we have agreed on that, I find great difficulty in understanding the position of the bon. gentleman, for they have been shouting for the past eight or nine months for the removal of all controls and for the government to get out of business. Now, how'ever, they are insisting on a Department of Reconstruction, and surely a Department of Reconstruction will have to concern itself with business. So that their two attitudes just do not make sense.
I suggest that it is not only the Minister of Reconstruction who needs time off in order to think but that my two hon. friends should take time off in order to think and clarify their minds on this important matter.


James Arthur Ross: I have been perfectly consistent on this matter.
Mr. MaclNNIS: If my hon. friend has been consistent on this matter, he is certainly not being consistent in sitting where he is now.


James Arthur Ross: Oh, yes.
Mr. MaclNNIS: Not at all because, if that is his thinking, he is quite out of line with the thinking of those among whom he is sitting.


Jean-François Pouliot: He does not think at all.
Mr. MaclNNIS: I rather agree with the hon. member for Temiscouata, if we never agree on anything else.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then you must be entirely wrong.
Mr. MaclNNIS: That may be true.
I do not know that the great amount of work which this new department will involve, together with the considerable amount of work there is still to do in the Department of Munitions and Supply, will necessitate the appointment of a new minister. I do not know; I think we shall have to wait and see, provided that the present minister wants to take on the job. It seems to me that he is a hog for work, and perhaps it is best for us to let him do it. We have learned from big business to-day that efficiency is not so much a matter of the man at the head doing everything himself as it is his ability to appoint capable people to whom he can assign the work of his department. If the minister is
Reconstruction and Supply

able to do that-and I believe he is-he can bring in to help him not only many capable men from outside this house, but also able parliamentary assistants from inside the house, and if one is not sufficient he can get several. So that I do not think the points raised are of any great importance. There may be sections of the bill which we shall have to scrutinize carefully in committee but, as the matter stands now, I think the principle of creating a Department of Reconstruction, even if it is associated with the Department of Supply, is a reasonable one and this group will be quite prepared to let the resolution go through.


Mr. JOHNSTON :: I think the setting up of a Department of Reconstruction is a step in the right direction, because there will be ' an important function for it to perform in converting from war-time to peace-time production. In our western cities where we had war industries we already have the problem of men being fired and now walking the streets in search of employment. This new department can perform a very useful service in seeing that these men are put to useful employment once more, so that they can earn their livelihood. If this department can take up the slack in employment to-day, which may increase as the days go by, it will be worth while.	'
I am not one of those who think the government should go into business, because in my experience, especially on the war expenditures committee, I have found that private industry, if given the opportunity, can do a job much better than the government, and that was proven during the war period. But undoubtedly there is a field in which this new department can operate to advantage in the reconstruction period, when the country is turning from war-time to peace-time production. The government can step in and take up the slack in employment. That question is already becoming prominent not only in the west but all over Canada, where there are now hundreds of unemployed people. I am not one of those who take seriously the statement of the government that they have jobs for everyone now. In Calgary many people have sought employment through national selective service, but when they have gone there they have found that the conditions of employment are entirely different from what they have been accustomed to, and that the wages offered are lower than what they were earning before. That is not only true of Calgary but of all Canada. As the leader of this party has pointed out, these lower wages that are now being offered concern labour more than any other factor, and 
rightly so. That is one of the problems we have to face, and I wish to congratulate the government on setting up this department, which I hope will bring about peace-time employment to the utmost possible extent as quickly as possible.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have often been accused of being rigid, not pliable, but perhaps'I have this one distinction, that I am the only man in the world who took on the job of buying war supplies at the beginning of the war and carrying it through to the end of the war. Perhaps if I had been more flexible I would, not have lasted as long.
I did think there would be some applause for this move from hon. gentlemen opposite because, if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario in an earlier speech this session demanded that the government reduce the number of ministers, and the purpose of this bill is to reduce the number by one.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not think I took such a liberty as that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was told that the hon. member did. However, the work of reconstruction is very closely associated with the work of liquidating the Department of Munitions and Supply. We have a great many war plants in this country, and all during the war a great many people were telling me that when the war stopped these plants would be closed and that every employee would be on the street. It is through the efforts of the Department of iReconstruction that not many plants have closed and that a large number of the men working in these plants are still working in them. If it had not been for the strike in the automobile industry the percentage of men still employed in the same plants in which they worked during the war would be still higher. That, of course, required very close coordination between the Department of Munitions and Supply, which was responsible for the operating of the plants as war plants, and the Minister of Reconstruction, who was responsible for the changing over into peace-time plants and finding tenants for those plants who could1 use them as employers of labour in peace-time work. The particular work of reconstruction is very much wrapped up with that type of service at the present time. My hon. friend has spoken of a shelf of public projects. We are building these as we can. There is a shortage of engineers, but that is gradually being overcome and our public projects are being increased. Unless we can get enough man-power and enough materials to build the homes the people of this country require, anyone in this house who demands.

Reconstruction and Supply
public projects of an extensive nature is doing a disservice to the work of reconstruction. I have given enough thought to the problem to be perfectly convinced that that is true, and the economists who are associated with me in the Department of Reconstruction are definitely of that view. There might be some slight dislocation this winter; there is bound to be, I think, with seasonal unemployment coming on top of reconversion of some of our largest industries and with the rapid demobilization of our veterans, but I believe there is every indication that next year will see employment on as high a level as it has been in the past several years. However, that is by the way. I simply say, in asking hon. members to pass this resolution and allow the bill to be introduced, that I am perfectly satisfied that the move proposed is a constructive one. If I did not think so, I would not have proposed the amalgamation to the Prime Minister. It provides a better use for the available man-powrer that can be engaged on the two parallel programmes, the one of dismantling war machinery, and the other the building up of peace-time industry.


James Arthur Ross: Would the minister answer the question with regard to priorities on equipment for soldiers, to enable them to establish themselves in civil life?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have studied the matter of priorities for soldiers. There is no difference between my hon. friend and myself on the desirability of it. The difficulty is that in disposing of war assets it is impossible to set up retail establishments. While I was in Washington a few days ago I happened- to notice a statement by surplus property administrator Symington. The problem there has been very much to the fore, this matter of preference for veterans in connection with surplus material. This item states:
In a letter to Senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney, chairman of the senate military affairs subcommittee on surplus goods, Symington said that the "only" alternative to putting over veterans preference would be to establish retail stores for veterans at the cost of "hundreds of millions of dollars."
If the proposals are turned down, then the United States will simply have to face the question "whether it would not be better to express the gratitude of the country to the veteran in some other way than a surplus preference."
Without suggesting such-a solution, the surplus property administrator then went on to point out that Canada had decided against surplus preference, and instead has given the veteran a straight cash bonus.
Symington asked the senate sub-committee to hold hearings on his plan and thresh out the entire problem.
The position in Canada is exactly the same. It is impossible to set up retail outlets across
Canada for the tremendous variety and diversity of goods which are being declared surplus by the armed services, and we found it impossible to devise any method of selling on a wholesale basis, as we must do, in a way that would give a definite price preference to veterans. If an application from a veteran is received for an article that can be sold direct by the corporation, that veteran certainly receives a preference over a man who does not have an equally good war record. That can be done,, but it covers only a limited number of cases. If any hon. member can devise any method which will enable War Assets Corporation to give a real veteran preference, the corporation will certainly adopt that method if it can be operated in a practical way. What was the other question?


James Arthur Ross: It was a request from the provincial school trustees association for instructional equipment to be turned over to school boards or departments of education.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is being considered by the committee on war expenditures, and 1 hope that some recommendation from the committee can be made. We have had demands from all the schools in Canada for machine tools. If those demands had been met in full it would have meant the withdrawal from industry of sixty or seventy thousand machine tools, without which it would1 have been impossible to maintain employment in the conversion period? We are meeting the demands for free issues of various kinds as far as we can, but we feel that the first duty is to use the machine tools of this country to keep at work the men who are using those tools to-day. I ask hon. members to have patience with us. We feel that we must do first things first, but we intend eventually to try to meet the requirements of the educational systems, as far as we can, with the materials we have available.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Speaking for myself, I am going to accept the minister's statement that the government itself is not going to carry on a business or any businesses by way of contracting or doing the jobs itself as a contractor. If I am right in interpreting the minister as having said that, and that they will let by contract what jobs they do, I will withdraw my personal opposition to the bill, because at the commencement I was in favour of a Department of Reconstruction; but my opposition in the earlier part of the evening was caused by my having heard, or having thought I heard, the minister say something which might mean that the government was going to enter business. I am wholly opposed to the government being in
Reconstruction and Supply

business, but I am quite in favour of the Department of Reconstruction giving direction as to what shall and must be done, and the sooner it gets busy the better.


Mr. HACKETT:: Has the minister considered the possibility of offering for sale by public auction a given number of vehicles in different localities throughout the country? I speak in particular of trucks and tractors.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is done with vehicles of military type. They are auctioned. A number of auctions have been held, and an attempt is being made to distribute the auctions about the country so that each section of the country will have a chance to buy that type of vehicle. But if it is an ordinary commercial vehicle, we tty to distribute it through the dealers, so that it can be put in shape and sold as a vehicle in satisfactory running order. If it is a military type we must tell the'buyer that there is no chance of getting repair parts over a period; he must buy the vehicle "as is, where is." The vehicles are then removed to parks and auctioned only to bona fide farmers. The federation of agriculture, which works very closely with us, certifies that the buyers are bona fide farmers, and only bids from bona fide farmers are accepted in the distribution of purely military types of trucks.
I may also say that we have auctions of miscellaneous materials when they can be offered in small lots. Usually the material comes to us in big lots and is not suitable for direct sale to the people in the form in which we receive it, in which event it is distributed through wholesalers.


John Thomas Hackett: I am speaking in partic-. ular of trucks and tractors.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think we have ever had a tractor sale.


John Thomas Hackett: I am anxious to know if there have ever been auctions of these vehicles in Quebec and if it is contemplated holding any after giving notice and a description of the vehicles.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe there have been auctions in Quebec but I cannot tell where.
I shall be glad to get the information and tell my hon. friend where auctions have been held. A great many have been held across Canada, and I would be surprised if there had not been any in the province of Quebec.


Mr. SKEY:: The minister has mentioned that the government must sell on a wholesale basis. I am speaking for a great many people in Canada who do not understand why it cannot, wll on a retail basis or in [Mr. MacNirol.j
small quantities to those who want to buy a considerable number of things that have been declared surplus from the armed forces. I would ask the minister to explain why the government must sell on a wholesale basis.
Mr. HOWrE: The reason is that we have not the retail outlets. To sell $10 million worth, a store like Eaton's has retail outlets all across the country, one in every town, and it handles a limited quantity of goods. War Assets Corporation has a tremendous variety of goods and instead of $10 million, it is handling a billion or two, or will before it is through. It. is physically impossible to hire sufficient staff and to build enough stores. We are using the existing stores and staff to sell to distributors on a wholesale basis and allow them to do the retailing. It would be difficult otherwise. However, we are getting off on another subject and I wonder if we could not carry this resolution so that we may have the bill distributed.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would it not be possible to have some bulldozers. We need one here for the civil service and I need one for an institution in my county.
Some hon. MEMBERS. Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. We want bulldozers.
WTe want something for the people'. At the present time it is hard to get anything.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: The people of Canada have
paid and paid generously in taxes throughout the war and, if the government has all this equipment declared surplus, the people cannot understand why they should have to buy it through retail sources. Why cannot they buy directly from the government, seeing that they have paid so well for these things? They cannot understand why the government do not simply declare them surplus, publish a list of what there is to be sold and allow the people of Canada'to have the benefit of the things they have paid for already.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is to become of the wartime bureau of technical' personnel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not under my supervision, but I believe it is still operative. I am not sure. I 'believe it is under labour.


Mr. MacMASTER:: The minister used the word "renegotiation" in connection with certain contracts. If he had said "liquidation" I would have understood him. He must have been thinking of some contracts. Are there any which he will renegotiate and not liquidate?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Renegotiation is a step toward liquidation. Every contract is surveyed

Private Bills
to see whether the profits have been fair and reasonable. The amounts recovered from 600 contracts that have been renegotiated approximate S300 million. We want to be sure that the contracts did provide only reasonable profit to the contractor. It is not possible in the early stages of a contract to establish costs that will protect against excess profits as the contracts go through.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 173, respecting the Department of Reconstruction and Supply.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, November 23, 1945.