Mr. MASSEY (for Mr. Betts):

For a return showing, all refunds, rebates or remissions, on account of direct or indirect taxation of any kind, made by the Department of National Revenue since November 1, 1935, and in each case the amount involved, the person to whom such amount was paid, and the agent acting on his behalf.

Mr. ILSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked that the motion stand so that I could look into the matter more fully. I find that from time to time similar motions have been made in the house, and that the information has always been refused, on the ground that it was disclosing the business of individual concerns. I have before me the record of twenty-five motions involving the same principle as the present one. and the same answer has been given by the ministers of various governments.

But in this particular instance there is another reason why it would be undesirable to pass the motion, and that is the volume of work. I should like to say a word on that point. The volume of work, the great expense involved and the length of time required in compiling and tabulating the information requested, will be apparent when it is pointed out that the return would include approximately 80,000 individual payments of drawbacks and refunds annually, the vast majority of which were paid under statutory authority, the amounts and authority for payment being verified in each case by the auditor general's office.

For example, during the fiscal year 1936-37, 60,861 customs refund claims, 11,241 excise tax refund claims, 505 excise duty refund claims, 5,516 customs-excise drawback claims, and 520 refunds or remissions by order in council were dealt with, to say nothing of the many hundreds of refunds of deposits, etc., made direct by collectors at the ports, details of which could be obtained only by circularizing

British Columbia Fishing Industry

the collectors from coast to coast. It would obviously take several months to search each claim and obtain from it and compile the special details requested, and, as this work could not be done without seriously disrupting regular work, additional assistance would have to be obtained. If such a return could be completed, the voluminous compilation would consist of more than 2,500 pages.

I would ask that the motion be dropped.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Dropped.

Mr. BENNETT:

I think it may be said to be answered, rather than dropped.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Stand.

Mr. BENNETT:

No, it is answered.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Answered.

Mr. GIROUARD:

For a return showing the names, addresses, occupations of all persons residing in the electoral district of Drummond-Arthabaska who are receiving a pension under the Old Age Pension Act, and showing the amount of the pension received by each such person.

Mr. DUNNING:

I must ask the hon. member to consent to allow this motion to be dropped, in view of what is involved in it. The lists of old age pensioners are the property of each province. Under the arrangements between the federal government and the government of each province, the province, in pursuance of its constitutional authority in that regard, first awards the pension, pays it and then submits to the federal government for audit purposes the necessary documentary proofs of having paid it in accordance with the agreement. I shall not labour the point as to whether we have the right to table in this house information which is the property of a province and which is submitted to us purely for audit purposes. Aside from that, I would point out that at the present time *there are approximately 175,000 old age pensioners in Canada and if we were to accept a motion such as is now before the house it would involve the possibility, nay I might say the probability, of having to reproduce a list of 175,000 names, addresses and occupations, and thus make public for the first time the names of those who are in receipt of old age pensions. Until now that information has been regarded by the provinces and by the dominion as private and of a character which should not be made public in the manner suggested.

I would urge also the amount of work involved. It would be easier to meet my hon. friend's request if the information came to us by constituencies, but unfortunately it

does not. The provincial lists are made up in numerical order by order of application, so that in order to extract the names requested by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard) it would be necessary to go through a list of some 45,000 old age pensioners in Quebec to obtain the addresses in order to find out what individuals lived in Drummond-Arthabaska. I am quite sure my hon. friend would not desire that this amount of work should be done in order to produce such a list.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of *the Opposition):

Just to correct the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), in Ontario, where the county councils paid a portion of the money, lists of those who received money in the county were available.

Mr. DUNNING:

I am not sure that it is so to-day. Certainly not in Quebec.

Mr. BENNETT:

I understand that they still pay ten per cent. You will remember the question came up at one time for consideration and it was contended that where anything involved the payment out of moneys, we were entitled to have the evidence of it here.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Dropped.

Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved:

Whereas a commission was appointed in 1922 to examine and report on all matters connected with the fishing industry of British Columbia;

And whereas amongst other findings they recommended that steps be taken to eliminate the Japanese fishermen so as to safeguard the fishing industry for white Canadian fishermen;

And whereas steps were taken in 1923 by the dominion government to implement this recommendation by the reduction of fishing licences issued annually to Japanese fishermen.

And whereas this curtailment of fishing licences to Japanese fishermen was only carried out until 1927 when no further steps were taken to safeguard the industry for white Canadian fishermen,

Therefore be it resolved,-that, in the opinion of this house, as the fishing industry in British Columbia is still to-day largely in tile hands of Japanese fishermen, and particularly in the Fraser river area, all fishing licences issued to Japanese, or those of Japanese origin, be reduced by not less than 40 per cent during the present year and by 15 per cent in each year following, and continued until such time as the recommendation made by the royal commission is carried out and the fishing industry of British Columbia in the hands of white Canadian fishermen.

British Columbia Fishing Industry

He said: Mr. Speaker, most of the remarks that might be made in connection with this resolution and with particular reference to the orientals in British Columbia were made the other evening by myself and other hon. members who spoke on the bill introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), hence it will not be necessary for me to cover again the same ground.

The purpose of the resolution is stated briefly in the last clause which reads:

Therefore be it resolved,-that, in the opinion of this house, as the fishing industry in British Columbia is still to-day largely in the hands of Japanese fishermen, and particularly in the Fraser river area, all fishing licences issued to Japanese, or those of Japanese origin, be reduced by not less than 40 per cent during the present year and by 15 per cent in each year following, and continued until such time as the recommendation made by the royal commission is carried out and the fishing industry of British Columbia in the hands of white Canadian fishermen.

This resolution does not suggest the adoption of a new policy. Back in 1919 the Department of Fisheries inaugurated a policy for the reduction of fishing licences to those of oriental origin. I should like to quote a statement by Mr. Found, the deputy minister of fisheries, made before the fisheries committee of 1926, and explaining this polity. He stated this policy very succinctly when he was asked to do so by the fisheries committee of 1926. He said: '

Speaking subject to correction, the situation is easily understood. For a good many years the feeling on the Pacific coast as to those who are engaged in the industry was a growing one, in one direction; after the war it became quite concrete. In 1919 it was decided that the time had come when a definite policy looking to the time when only white British subjects and Indians engaged in the industry could be brought about.

The orientals entered the fishing industry of British Columbia during the war years and have remained there ever since. In 1920-21 a total of 4,143 fishing licences were issued to persons of oriental origin. Because of pres-rure brought to bear by the people of British Columbia it was felt that something had to be done about the matter, and the department attempted to do something, according to the statement of Mr. Found which I have just quoted. It was felt that it would not do to disrupt the industry by eliminating them all at one time; hence a policy of gradual elimination was adopted.

In 1922 parliament appointed a royal commission composed of members of this house who were instructed to go to the Pacific coast to investigate all matters connected with the fishing industry. One of the matters investigated when they were

there on the coast was that of fishing licences issued to persons of oriental origin. So serious did they consider this matter that when they returned they reported, not a fifteen per cent reduction in any year but an initial reduction of forty per cent. That the commission had in mind the policy adopted in 1919 by the Department of Fisheries is evidenced by words uttered in the house by one of the members of that commission. Mr. Martell, the then member for Hants, is reported on page 1555 of Hansard of March 27, 1923, as follows:

I do not believe that I am giving away any secret of the commission when I say that the idea of the majority was not only a reduction of 40 per cent but that there should be such a 40 per cent reduction at the outset, and a sufficient reduction from year to year looking to the total exclusion of Asiatics from the British Columbia fisheries within a period of five years.

The suggested reduction of forty per cent was adopted by the Department of Fisheries. From year to year the department looked for guidance to the fisheries committee, but as the committee did not meet in 1924 no reduction was made that year. In 1925 a fifteen per cent reduction was put into effect. In 1926 the members of the fisheries committee again investigated this matter, because the department wanted guidance as to what percentage of reduction should be put into effect each year. I should like to read to the house the motion moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni before the committee in 1926. It reads:

That the committee confirm the policy adopted by the department some years ago looking to the restriction of salmon and cod fishing licences on the Pacific coast to white men and native Indians and recommend that the licences issued in 1927 to others than white men and native Indians be reduced by ten per cent of the number issued in 1926; and in each future year the number of such licences be reduced by ten per cent of the number issued in 1926, until these licences will be issued entirely to white men and native Indians within ten years.

The committee of 1926, sitting here in Ottawa, not only endorsed the department's policy of 1919 but recommended a ten per cent reduction in the number of fishing licences issued to orientals each year until such time as the industry would once again be in the hands of white Canadians. In 1927 a further reduction of ten per cent took place, but at that time the Japanese in British Columbia contested the right of the department to discriminate and refuse them licences, and they took the question to the courts. It went through the courts until finally it reached the privy council, the privy council deciding in favour of the Japanese. But I want the house to note the reasons given by

British Columbia Fishing Industry

the privy council for deciding in favour of the Japanese. On looking into the question the privy council found that this parliament had not given to the Minister of Fisheries the right to discriminate. It was not that the privy council disputed at all the right of parliament so to do, but they found that parliament had not given that right to the Minister of Fisheries, and so he was prohibited until 1929 when the Fisheries Act was amended and that right given to the minister. I hold a copy of the act in my hand, and I shall read that particular clause:

The minister may, in his absolute discretion wherever the exclusive right of fishing does not already exist by law, issue or authorize to be issued fishery leases and licences for fisheries and fishing wheresoever situate or carried on.

That, it was expected, would enable the department to carry out their policy and continue with the reduction of fishing licences issued to those of oriental origin. However, no further reductions were made in the number of fishing licences issued to orientals in 1929, but that by the way is rather a long story which I shall not take time to go into now. But I want the house to note this, that if the policy of the department had been carried out, as was intended, right through all those years, there would not be to-day one oriental in the fishing industry in British Columbia, and consequently we would not now be facing this trouble.

The house might be interested in a few statistics dealing with licences before I proceed to some of the salient points I have to place before it. In 1927 the total number of fishing licences issued in British Columbia to those of oriental origin was 1,990. In 1937. although the policy of reduction had then been in effect for many years, there were issued 2.608 licences, or 618 more than were issued ten years earlier, in 1927.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, some may argue that the Japanese are in this country, that many of them were born here, and it may be asked. What are you going to do with them? At this point let me say that this licensing question is a more serious problem than the closing of our gates to the Japanese. I am in favour of closing our gates to the Japanese, but the most serious problem arising out of the question I am discussing is, What are we going to do with the orientals who are already in Canada? If I have time I shall develop that a little later. It was contended during many years, and still is by some people, that if the Japanese are forced out of the fishing industry they will go into farming and other industries. That is an old argument. When it was used a number of years ago, it was thought that if the Japanese were forced

out of fishing they would go into farming, and that that industry would become overcrowded; but although we have continued to issue fishing licences to Japanese to the numbers I have mentioned, that has not prevented them from going into farming and many other industries. It is well known to the Fraser Valley, for example, that the Japanese control many lines of agriculture there, and that they are invading timbering and other industries as well.

I want particularly, however, to deal with the Fraser river district, which I have the honour to represent in this house. First of all let me explain that on the Fraser river all commercial fishing is done by means of the gill net, unlike other fishing on the open waters of the Pacific, which is done by trawling or by seines. But on the Fraser river, as I say, commercial fishing is done almost entirely by gill net.

In 1922 the department issued a total of 870 gill net fishing licences to those of oriental origin, and in the same year only 390 to white Canadians. When the reduction of forty per cent was put into effect in 1923, that number of 870 was reduced to 522 licences to Japanese fishermen, and the fifteen per cent reduction in 1925 brought the number down to 470. The ten per cent reduction in 1927, the last year of the reductions, reduced the number of gill net licences issued to orientals to 425, and since that time the Department of Fisheries has endeavoured to keep the number running between 410 and 450. But the number of 425, of gill net licences issued, does not by any means begin to paint a true picture of what is actually taking place on the Fraser river to-day. Let me at this point explain, because I am now going to deal with another form of licence that is issued, namely, "assistant gill net" fishing licence. Licences to assistants were issued years ago when fishing was done by rowboat and sailboat because it was very difficult then for one man to set the net and handle the oars or the sail at the same time; but since then the gas boat has superseded the rowboat and sailboat, gill net fishing has been carried on by means of the gas boat, operated generally by one man. It can be successfully carried on by one man operating a gas boat. The Japanese, however, and others of oriental origin, were very soon able to see what could be done by the added use of assistant gill net licences, and so year by year they have been obtaining not only gill net licences, but assistant gill net licences as well. Last year they obtained not only 425 gill net licences, but in addition 376 assistant gill net licences, making a total of 801 licences issued to them.

British Columbia Fishing Industry

The question may be asked, Why does the white fisherman not take out an assistant gill net licence and compete with these orientals? There are many reasons why he does not. First of all, the white man can operate the boat himself; and so could the Jap if he wanted to. Second, with the meagre returns he receives-the white man, with his standard of living, cannot afford to compete with the Japanese if he has to split any returns in two and pay an assistant. For the information of the house I might point out that most of the Japanese fishermen at the mouth of the Fraser river are living in shacks at a place called Steveston, and if any members were to pass along there they would wonder whether they were in Canada or Japan. When we come to the point of asking our Canadian fishermen to get down to the standard of living exhibited around these shacks on the waterfront at Steveston, it will be a very sorry day indeed for our people. Our white Canadian fishermen mostly own their own homes and have taxes to pay, etc. There is also this, that with only one man in the boat, the white fisherman cannot operate twenty-four hours a day, like the Japanese who. with two men on each boat, are operating their boats night and day. The fishery guardian comes along and sees a Jap aboard his boat. The Japanese all look alike to him. He is not sure whether that man has a gill net licence or only an assistant licence, and you would need a hundred official guardians to check this up; but a white man could be spotted if he tried any of these tricks and he would be punished very soon.

In 1923 the total of all types of fishing licences issued in British Columbia was 2,486. That was the year when the forty per cent reduction was put into effect. In 1937 there was a total of 2,608. Instead of a policy of reduction being carried out, these licences have increased by 122 during the past few years. On the Fraser in 1923 there were 522 gill-net fishing licences issued to Japanese, whereas in 1937 they have, with the assistants' licences, a total of 841. This number includes a few other types of licences but a total of 319 more licences were issued in the year 1937 than were issued in 1923, or an increase of exactly seventy per cent. So that if the resolution before the house were adopted and carried out, it would still leave them 505 fishing licences in the Fraser river area as against 522 in 1923; and, if the reduction were extender! to every kind of fishing licence in the province, the total would be 1,304 as against 1,990 ten years ago. Surely no great cry of "injustice" could arise, because, as has been already

pointed out, had the policy of reduction been carried into effect there would now be none of these people in the fishing industry in British Columbia, whereas last year their total numbers were 2,608. The assistant gill-net fishing licences have been of tremendous value to those of oriental origin, and they have taken advantage of these licences to increase their returns; not only that, but their boats are so numerous and in such constant use around the mouth of the Fraser river that it is a miracle that any salmon or other fish ever pass the great numbers of nets in operation there.

This resolution has not been introduced in any spirit of hatred or animosity. The same cannot be said of the Japanese attitude, since, because I took a strong part in opposing giving them the vote, last year they announced through their newspapers in Japan that I was number one bad man in Canada against them. The fact that they did this has no bearing on the resolution now before the house; I want to make that plain. My concern is for our own people, and I offer an apology to no one for putting up a fight on behalf of the white Canadian.

I shall now proceed to describe very briefly the Fraser river, so that the situation there will be more clearly understood. There are two areas in the Fraser, one above the New Westminster bridge, the other below it. The licences issued to those above the bridge are given principally only to persons who own property. Generally speaking, about 1S6 licences are issued to those above the bridge and 1,250 to those below. Hence it is with the lower reaches of the Fraser, the mouth of the river that I am particularly concerned, for it is there that I see grave danger to our fishing industry as a whole. These people are all at the mouth of the river; they are operating their boats from the town of Steveston to the mouth, and the house will realize just how serious this matter is when I point out that to-day it is almost as much as a white Canadian's life is worth to attempt to fish in the area between Steveston and the mouth of the river. Let me cite one incident which occurred last year when a white Canadian endeavoured to do so. Those of Japanese origin jumped on his boat, put his engine out of commission, cut his net, and assaulted him greviously. Are we in this country going to stand for that kind of thing?

Mr. BENNETT:

Were they punished?