Mr. W. R. THATCHER (Moose Jaw):

I should like to answer the hon. member. If he believes what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said last night, no taxes have been imposed as yet.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

Why did you

collect the tax from me, then?

Mr. THATCHER:

Naturally my firm could not refund a tax which has not yet been imposed; but if the hon. member wants his money back I suggest that he vote against this resolution.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I should like to make a statement to the house regarding certain questions which have been raised with respect to the Hong Kong inquiry.

On January 29 the leader of the opposition asked if I would now table a letter from Mr. George A. Drew which the government had been asked to table on July 14, 1942.

Subsequently, on February 9, the leader of the opposition gave notice of a motion which appears on the order paper "for a copy of the evidence taken before the Duff commission in connection with dispatching Canadian armed forces to Hong Kong".

I informed the house that to comply with either of these requests it would be necessary, among other considerations, to ascertain whether the government of the United Kingdom was now prepared to withdraw its objection to the publication of certain communications, which had been made available to the commission on the express undertaking that they would not be made public.

On Friday last, February 20, I informed the house that a reply had been received on the previous day from the United Kingdom government. The reply is to the effect that if the Canadian government wish to publish the telegrams relating specifically to the dispatch of the two Canadian battalions to Hong Kong, the United Kingdom government would raise no objection, provided the telegrams were paraphrased to avoid compromising the secret cipher. However, as regards the telegrams which related to the international situation in the far east, the United Kingdom authorities regret that they cannot agree to the publication of any of those on the ground that they belong to a class of communication framed on the basis that they would not be published. The United Kingdom authorities express the opinion that the whole system of full and frank communication between governments of the commonwealth would be prejudiced if telegrams of this nature had to be prepared on the basis that they might eventually be published.

The communications relating to the international situation in the far east which the United Kingdom authorities are still unwilling to have published were at the time of the investigation considered so secret that they were seen only by the commissioner and by counsel in a conference of which it was understood that no record was to be kept. The copy of the evidence taken before the commission does not therefore include any of the communications to the publication of which the government of the United Kingdom continues to object.

These communications, however, form an integral part of the material on which the commissioner, Sir Lyman Duff, the then chief justice, based his report. This is clearly indi-

1550

Hong Kong Inquiry

cated in the report itself. I quote the following extract from page 4 of the report of the commissioner:

I had the advantage of reading a number of dispatches from the government of the United Kingdom, which I an not at liberty to reproduce, as well as 'a dispatch from the Canadian military authorities in England, which is reproduced in part, dealing with the probabilities concerning war with Japan, and my conclusion is that, having regard to the information of which the government was in possession, derived from the best sources of information open to them, nothing emerged before the departure of the expeditionary force on the 27th of October which could have been considered to be a justification for the withdrawal by Canada from the responsibility she had undertaken.

The written record does contain telegrams to the publication of which the United Kingdom takes no exception. These telegrams cannot, however, be made public in the actual form in which they appear in the evidence. To avoid' compromising the secret ciphers they must be paraphrased. In this particular, what would be produced would necessarily be an approximation to the record rather than the written record of evidence itself. It is important that this should be clearly understood.

A word now as to the letter from Mr. George A. Drew. As the house is aware, the government was asked to table this letter in 1942. On the advice of Mr. George A. Campbell, K.C., of Montreal, counsel for the government in the Hong Kong inquiry, the request was not complied with at that time. Mr. Campbell's opinion was given to the house. It will be found in Hansard for July 15, 1942, at page 4254. I quote the following extract from Mr. Campbell's opinion:

At the conclusion of the hearing for the taking of testimony in this matter, and some days before the date fixed for completion of the hearing of oral argument, all counsel concerned received notice from the commissioner requiring them on the day of the final hearing of oral argument to deliver up to the secretary of the commission any and all transcripts of evidence, exhibits and copies thereof, written arguments and copies thereof, notes of evidence and any and all other writings and documents relating in any way whatsoever to the matters in question.

It appears from Mr. Drew's communication that it purports largely to be based upon his written argument to the commissioner, of which presumably therefore he retained a copy in his possession. In his letter he gives a number of verbatim quotations from the transcript of evidence and exhibits.

Mr. Drew's letter purports to give the effect of a number of confidential communications received by the government of Canada from the government of the United Kingdom, the disclosure of which was only consented to by the government of the United Kingdom subject to a specific condition that the disclosure was to be limited to the commissioner and counsel only, and solely for the purpose of the inquiry;

and the commissioner was not permitted to reproduce these communications in his report. Any disclosure, therefore, even to the House of Commons, would in my opinion be a violation of the substance of that condition.

If, therefore, Mr. Drew's communication is tabled by you before the House of Commons I am of the opinion that you will be violating a condition under which the government of the United Kingdom consented to the disclosure to the commissioner and counsel of those telegrams.

Hon. members will see from Mr. Campbell's opinion, that, apart altogether from the ordinary rules of courtesy invariably followed in relation to communications between governments, there was a specific obligation on the part of the Canadian government to secure the consent of the United Kingdom government before a decision could be reached respecting the publication of Mr. Drew's letter.

May I remind the house of the circumstances in which Mr. Drew's letter was written. The royal commission made its report on June 4, 1942. Some weeks later, on July 11, 1942, in a lengthy letter addressed to me as Prime Minister, Mr. Drew took exception to the findings of the commissioner. In this letter, as Mr. G. A. Campbell's opinion shows, Mr. Drew discloses information which he had been informed had been imparted by the British government to the commissioner on the express understanding that it would not be made public, a condition Mr. Drew accepted by continuing to participate in the inquiry.

Mr. Drew's letter has now been examined in the light of the reply of the United Kingdom government respecting the publication of the secret communications made available by the United Kingdom government to the commission. The letter has been found to contain several references to the contents of one of the telegrams which the United Kingdom continues to be unwilling to have made public. In view of the undertaking on which this telegram was made available to the commission. the Canadian government has no choice but to decline to table the letter.

Mr. Drew may decide for himself whether he wishes to break the confidence reposed in him and to disclose information which the government of the United Kingdom wishes to have kept secret. So far as our government is concerned, we intend to have no part in any such breach of faith with the British government. Equally we do not intend to invest Mr. Drew's letter with any kind of privilege by tabling it in the House of Commons and thereby making it a public document.

As regards the tabling of the evidence, the government is of the opinion that it would have been more in accord with the feelings

Hong Kong Inquiry

of the Canadian people if the Hong Kong matter had not been revived. The report of the commission of inquiry speaks for itself. The report was made by the then Chief Justice of Canada after hearing all the evidence and all the arguments. However, as a request for a copy of the evidence has been made by the leader of the opposition, and a refusal on the part of the government to comply with that request might occasion misunderstanding and misrepresentation, the government is prepared to table the written record of the evidence. In so doing, however, it will be necessary, for reasons of security, to paraphrase the texts of cipher messages, and, for reasons which will be obvious, to make available only to the leaders on the opposition side certain confidential reports on officers and units not selected for the Hong Kong force, and certain reports or communications based on sources outside the armed forces of Canada, in cases where such reports or communications were made on the understanding that the information was to remain confidential.

Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house has listened with interest to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with respect to certain incidents arising out of the Hong Kong affair of some five years or more ago. I am aware that on an occasion such as this we are not allowed to debate the matter. On the other hand the practice has grown up of the government at the opening of the house making statements of this kind, at which times Your Honour has permitted brief observations by hon. members on this side of the house who may feel they have some comment that should be made.

I wish to say only three things, and to say them briefly. One of the basic rights of democracy is that parliament must know, if it wishes, what is going on or what has gone on behind the scenes. We gave up that right during the war, when the nation was in danger. Now that the war is over we think we are entitled to know the factg. The Prime Minister has indicated that certain facts will be made available. To that extent I am sure the house will be pleased.

My second observation is this: In connection with this whole Hong Kong affair I do not suppose there was any other instance in world war II where untrained and unarmed troops were sent into battle. As to who wag responsible for that, the Canadian people are entitled to know.

The Prime Minister has referred to codes uged in communications used between two countries. I am sure there is no one in the 5849-99J

house who would wish or ask that information such as that should be divulged. I think that what the house wants, and what the Canadian people want, could be given without divulging any such secrets between two nations. But if there has been incompetence somewhere in an affair of this importance, the Canadian people will want to see it exposed.

I have just one other thing to say. As I gather from the Prime Minister's remarks, he is denying us the right to have the Drew correspondence tabled. He is undertaking to table certain other information-perhaps the greater part of the evidence of the Duff commission-but certain other parts he hag indicated, ag I gathered from his remarks, that he does not feel the government can take the responsibility for tabling.

I shall conclude by saying that the government must accept full responsibility for any portion of that evidence it denies to parliament. I am sure the Prime Minister is prepared to take that responsibility. But he must take it, not the House of Commons. When the evidence comes down we will see how much has been given and how much has been held back. We cannot be left in the position of allowing another administration to excuse this administration from tabling all the information we are entitled to have.

All we on this side of the house want is the facts, and the truth, without exposing any secret codes which may exist between another country and Canada. I trust that when the evidence comes down we will find that the government has not held back anything that would help to clarify this painful episode in Canada's history.

Mr. Speaker, may I say just a word? I have a distinct recollection of what happened on July 14 after the leaders of the parties on this side of the house had received a copy of the letter which Colonel Drew sent to ithe Prime Minister. On that occasion I stated that I would accept the responsibility of asking that it be tabled. Next day the Prime Minister brought down the opinion of Mr. Campbell. As I recollect, having heard the opinion of counsel no one on this side of the house pressed at that time for the tabling of the evidence.

The war is over. The resolution which occasioned this discussion calls for a copy of the evidence taken before the Duff commission in connection with dispatching Canadian, armed forces to Hong Kong. The Drew letter does not figure in that particular resolution. The Prime Minister has only to bring down the evidence with certain telegrams paraphrased and with other telegrams with-

Hong Kong Inquiry

held at the request of the British government. If that is done I believe that we shall then be able to make an appraisal of the evidence :and come to a better conclusion with respect to the Hong Kong affair.

I have always been uneasy about the Hong Kong affair, particularly because I saw some -of the men who were to go there, one of whom appeared later before the commission nnd gave me information which I believe will be found in the evidence. I am glad that the evidence is to be produced. Following the discussion which the Prime Minister had yesterday with the leaders of the groups in the house I agree that in view of the secrecy of the code used between Great Britain and Canada the telegrams cannot be disclosed in their original phraseology. However, I hope that in making the paraphrase the responsible officials will exercise particular care to see that there is accuracy in every particular. I believe that that will be done. Since this meets the object of the resolution, I hope that we shall have an opportunity of reviewing the evidence.

Hon. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Perhaps I might be permitted to answer mv hon. friend at once. As the house will recall, the hon. member who has just spoken was one of the ministers of defence at the time of the sending of the expedition to Hong Kong. I shall be very happy this afternoon to quote his words when he said that he hoped that the decision arrived at by the British authorities would be reviewed. I shall be happy to add to that my own words, that the government of Canada would be pleased indeed if that wish on the part of my hon. friend could be carried out.

Mr. CHURCH:

All we want to know is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Our soldiers were marched off the ship and then inarched into an internment camp. It should be all on the record.

Mr. HACKETT:

Why should the dispatches be paraphrased rather than simply decoded?

Hon. BROOKE CLANTON (Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to answer that question. It is within the knowledge of all hon. members that highly confidential information passes between representatives of governments which it would be of great advantage, in war or in peace, for other countries to obtain. For that reason all nations have ciphers and codes which they endeavour to keep safe. It is also well known to hon. members, through the press and otherwise, that sometimes certain nations endeavour to intercept messages in order to try to break a cipher and learn- exactly what is contained in it. And it is within the knowledge of hon. members that no small part of the allied successes during this war was due to the fact that so far as is now known- allied ciphers remained impregnable whereas enemy ciphers did not. One reason for that is that it may be possible to intercept the exact text of messages as they were sent in cipher, but in order to break them down it is almost essential to have the exact text of the message as decoded. A country having possession of those two factors certainly stood a much better chance of breaking a cipher than without them. On

Hong Kong Inquiry

that ground whenever ciphers are used they are required to be paraphrased. That is the ordinary and customary practice within government departments and between governments and it is in accordance with consistent requests from the British to ourselves and from us to them. They have made that request of us on this occasion.

I can assure hon. members that expert officers in the Departments of External Affairs and Defence are quite accustomed to paraphrasing and the results will be completely fair and accurate.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Does paraphrasing mean that we shall have the government's interpretation of what the actual correspondence is?

Mr. CLAXTON:

Mr. Speaker, I should think the hon. member had been long enough in this house to know that that would not be the desire of this government at least. There is no case where that has been shown ever to have taken place. The paraphrasing will be done by expert officials of the Department of External Affairs or of National Defence, and it will be done under very close scrutiny.

Mr. GRAYDON:

After the way the Prime Minister undertook to paraphrase George Drew's position in connection with this matter, you do not need to wonder that I asked the question.

Mr. POULIOT:

Mr. Speaker, being the one who asked for the resignation of Colonel Ralston on January 31, 1942, precisely_ on account of what had happened at Hong Kong I would ask the leader of the opposition why he eulogized him so much during the Grey North by-eleetion. [DOT]

On the orders of the day: