Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege affecting me as a member of parliament. On February 25 last, when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were under discussion, in a speech expressing views concerning the Japanese in Canada differing from those expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), I made certain remarks which can be found at page 1020 of Hansard. In my remarks I pointed out that in my opinion the Japanese in Canada were an unassimilable race. Here are my exact words:

In answer to a question of mine it was admitted by Japanese that they owed allegiance first to Japan, and so long as every Japanese born here is registered in Japan -and is looked upon as a Japanese national he cannot be truly a Canadian. Hence my objection to -them as a class. They are not an assimilable race, and are different in their outlook from any other nationals in Canada.

This morning I received a copy of a newspaper called the New Canadian, published in Vancouver by the Japanese, in their own interests; and I am now going to read to the house an article which appeared in the issue of February 28, which contains a scurrilous personal attack upon both the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and myself, which I do not intend to let go unchallenged. This is the statement:

Some rather caustic comments concerning Canadians of Japanese origin were bandied about in the House of Commons this week, in

War Expenditures Committee

a manner to suggest that several British Columbia members of the house are still unprincipled politicians, first, last and all the time.

Mr. A. W. Neill, the honourable member from Comox-Alberni, was once again the leading spirit in an attack upon the quality of our loyalty and our Canadianism. With due assistance from his companion in prejudice, Mr. Tom Reid from New Westminster, he sawed violently away at his favourite plank-one, by the way, that he has exploited to considerable advantage for many a year-"once a Jap, always a Jap."

With due deference to his prestige, his position and his fossilization, the editor of this weekly presumes to disagree. And with all respect to the honourable members, he publicly challenges Mr. Neill and Mr. Reid to an open debate to determine which proposition is the more valid: "Once a Japanese, always a

Japanese," or "Once an oriental-baiting politician, always an oriental-baiting politician."

An agreement as to time, place or conditions may be deferred until the honourable members of the house have considered, with what means they have at their disposal, somewhat more pressing problems of Canadian unity and the Canadian war effort.

These statements are not only false; they are malicious, and I want to repudiate in the strongest possible terms this personal attack upon myself. At no time have I endeavoured to arouse hostile or racial feelings against the Japanese in British Columbia. It is true that I have endeavoured in this house to point out certain dangers which I believe exist in British Columbia or might exist if the franchise were granted the Japanese. I have also urged that control of our fisheries by the Japanese in British Columbia should not be permitted to continue. My statements, first that the Japanese are an unassimilable race and second that most if not all Japanese in this country, whether born in Canada or elsewhere, are registered in Japan as Japanese nationals, have never been refuted by anyone, not even the Japanese themselves.

Such a vilifying personal attack, Mr. Speaker, comes with poor grace from a race of people who have enjoyed, with the exception of the franchise, every phase of our Canadian social and economic life.

Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk):

By leave of the house, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) that the first report of the special committee on war expenditures, presented to the house yesterday, be now concurred in.

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):

I do not rise for the purpose of dissenting from this report. Mr. Speaker, but there is one feature of it with regard to

which I think some explanation should be given. I refer to the matter of printing. The report contains a recommendation that so many copies of the proceedings in English and so many copies in French be printed at the discretion of the committee, which is quite unusual. I should like some explanation from the chairman as to why the committee desires to retain this discretion rather than have the usual resolution put through-simply an order of the house that the proceedings be printed.

Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk):

Mr. Speaker, the committee reserves to itself the right to determine from time to time whether its minutes and evidence shall be printed. It has been decided, until the committee determines otherwise, that the sessions of the committee shall be open sessions. If the committee should decide that in the interests of the nation its sittings shall be in camera, then the committee reserves to itself the right to determine whether the minutes and the evidence shall be printed. I suggest that that is a very proper reservation to make.

Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):

While

concurrence in this report was granted by hon. members of the committee, nevertheless I think it ought to be pointed out that the motion for concurrence was carried on division.

With regard to the matter of printing, we know that a clause was inserted in the report now before the house providing that that matter should be left to the discretion of the committee. But I should like to reiterate the position I took on a previous occasion when the resolution was being considered, and to suggest that so far as possible all meetings of the committee should be general meetings, that the evidence not printed should be kept to a minimum and the maximum printed. I say this for the following reasons. The report asks concurrence in the proposal that the committee be empowered to divide itself into subcommittees, which subcommittees. in common with the committee itself, shall have power to call and examine witnesses, and so on. But, without thought of anything of a political nature-I am satisfied that no one serving on the committee is thinking of it in that sense at all-I must point out that the composition of the committee is such that it consists of only four members from His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, one member from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and one from the Social Credit group. That leaves a committee on which there are eighteen members of the government party. In reply to an observation from the other side I will add "in charge of that committee." I hope, Mr. Speaker, that they realize they are in charge, and will not dominate the committee.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

I hope they will leave their domination on the doorstep before they come in, and remember that while we are at war we are going to look at this matter from a big, broad point of view, to help the present situation.

But coming to the point I want to emphasize, those four members are anxious to study the problems which come before the committees-

So are we.

Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):

-in common with their fellows on the committees. Four members cannot sit on five committees; therefore I suggest that the main evidence be taken and the main portion of the work conducted by the general committee. In like manner a maximum of the evidence should be printed, for the added reason that all hon. members will want to know what is going on, and the only way they can know is by their reading of the printed record. And, more important than the membership of this house, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada will want to know what is going on.

With all due respect to those who have cast reflections upon some of the members of the fourth estate who occupy seats up above us, they are perhaps even better fitted than we are to inspire public confidence and to remind Canada that we are at war. We look forward to the press doing a real job of encouraging our people in their war effort, and of reminding those in Canada who are not thinking about a war that there is a war on.

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) if it is true that he, or one of his officials, has written to the provincial governments who have outstanding loans from the dominion government to ascertain whether they are in any position to reduce or to pay off such loans. I should also like the minister to tell the house what replies, if any, have been received. I base my inquiry on a press dispatch from Vancouver. British Columbia, which asserts that the premier of British Columbia has taken the attitude that his government is not obligated to repay loans granted for the purpose of providing relief for unemployment.

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I believe the best way to reply

to the question is to produce the correspondence which has passed between this government and one or perhaps more of the provincial governments. It is very difficult to summarize the correspondence.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

What the minister has suggested would be satisfactory.

Mr. ILSLEY:

It would be difficult to summarize it in the way in which perhaps someone has attempted to summarize it in the newspaper article. If the leader of the opposition will place a resolution on the order paper, or permit this request to be regarded as a request for the tabling of the correspondence, I shall be prepared to table it.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

That is

very satisfactory.