May 4, 1942

NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Well, he has moved a motion without saying anything; he has the right to wind up afterwards; and as he did not rise, I thought it was incumbent upon me to extend this invitation.

This committee which has been set up annually in this parliament has served, I think, a very useful function. I am told, by those who have had the privilege of acting upon it, that it has been freer from partisan considerations than any other committee which has been operating in this parliament. This is all to the good, because it is dealing with a problem which has, I should hope, nothing to do with party.

We have had from time to time one or two debates on the reports of this committee, and they have been instructive and illuminating. I am not unaware of the fact that public opinion has changed from time to time with respect to the deliberations of this committee and the recommendations which it has made to parliament and which have been crystallized by changes in the regulations. In the early stages of the war everybody was to be interned. Later a more liberal view prevailed. The late minister of justice had his own ideas and opinions, and I am wondering what the position of the new minister is with regard to this very important problem *-one which no doubt is constantly before him.

I should like to know in particular what his attitude is towards that body of public opinion, if I may so term it, the communist party of Canada. I understand that certain communications have passed between an official of that party, which is now barred and is probably operating under another name, and the minister himself; in fact I have seen a copy of an open statement which was made to the minister. I should like to know what the present attitude of the department is with relation to the communist party, which at the present time is declared to be an illegal body in Canada, but which to-day, if one can believe the protestations that appear

Defence of Canada Regulations

in the public press and the communications which reach us in manner I know not just how, is for an all-out war effort. Has that had any effect upon the minds of the minister and his advisers, or does something lie behind it? I am not making any allegations or statements; I am looking for information. I think we have the right to know, since this motion has been put to the house, what is the policy of the government in relation to the important question of the defence of Canada regulations. Are they to be ameliorated or are they to be stiffened? What lead will the minister give to the committee, or is the committee to be left with a free hand, as has been the case in days gone by when recommendations have been made by the committee? It would be interesting to know, so far as it is possible to express it here, the policy of the government in regard to this matter.

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to know that a committee is to be set up again to review the defence of Canada regulations and to consider the administration of the regulations. I regret exceedingly that I am not able to serve on the committee this year. I believe the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) was quite correct in his statement that probably in no committee has there been less political partisanship than in the defence of Canada committee. From time to time when we divided it was frequently along the lines of, shall I say, a liberal interpretation of the regulations, versus one which was not so liberal and the liberal interpretation seemed to cut clear across party lines in the committee.

I think it is wise that the house should review each session the operations under regulations such as these, which do infringe upon normal peace-time rights of the citizens of this country. During the past two and a half years, since the war broke out and these regulations have been in effect, there has been a great deal of criticism both of the regulations and-sometimes-of the manner in which they have been administered. From time to time the committee, after full and free discussion, recommended modifications of certain of the regulations, and I am glad to know that all the modifications recommended last year were subsequently implemented by the government, so that the consolidated regulations as they now stand are in effect approved, to a very large extent, by the committees which have worked upon them.

There are still some defects which ought to be remedied. I have never been quite satisfied with regulation 21, although under the procedure adopted now under No. 22, regulation

21 becomes less objectionable. I think I may say, as one who up to about ten months ago had received voluminous protests against section 21, that since then I have received very few. Yet I feel that section 21 and the administration thereunder should be carefully reviewed this year by the committee.

We have in Canada, as the leader of the opposition intimated a few moments ago, a large number of people in civilian concentration camps, classified as prisoners of war, who were picked up because it was suspected that they held ideas subversive of Canada's war effort. They of course fell into two groups. There were the ones referred to by the leader of the opposition a few moments ago, those who were accused of communistic attachments; and there was a large group of Italians who were suspected of fascist tendencies. As the leader of the opposition quite properly pointed out, at the outbreak of hostilities there was a demand that very large numbers of people should be interned immediately, and I think it is not untrue to say that many of the people who were picked up at that time and placed in concentration or internment camps were placed there on very flimsy evidence. I have noted, therefore, with a good deal of interest and satisfaction, that the present Minister of Justice this year has had reviewed many of these cases, and some of these people have been liberated. But perhaps we are still too narrow in our view in that regard, and many of the people who were accused, for example, of communistic affiliations, because of their attitude towards the war before Russia entered the war, are now anxious and willing to assist in every way possible to carry forward our war effort.

As the house knows, I have very little confidence in people who more or less place another country ahead of their own, and whose ideas are governed entirely by events which take place elsewhere. Nethertheless I think it is quite proper to say that these cases should be reviewed and that those who are genuinely opposed to the fascist and Hitler ideas, as I believe that all these people really are, should receive consideration and should be allowed to resume their normal lives as a part of the community. I do not think it is wise or good, I do not think it is conducive to the maintenance of morale in this country, that people should be incarcerated because of views they held two years ago which have changed drastically in the past ten or twelve months.

There are one or two other matters in connection with these regulations to which

Defence of Canada Regulations

I wish to refer. A number of papers have been banned from time to time. Against the banning of these papers there has been no adequate appeal, and I am at a loss to understand just what the policy of the government is in regard to periodicals published outside and within this country. I have been receiving free for the past eight or ten months, ever since, I believe, the first issue appeared, a publication known as the Voice of Austria. I noticed only to-day that this was published in Ottawa; I thought it was still published in New York. When I was in Great Britain last October I met the secretary of the Free-Austrian movement of Great Britain, the council of democratic Austrians in that country. To show that it is a respectable organization I will read the list of patrons: The Most Rev. the Lord Archbishop of York, now Archbishop of Canterbury; the Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Chichester; the Chief Rabbi; the Rt. Hon. Lord Hailey, G.CB.L., G.C.I.E.; Sir William H. Bragg, O.M., K.B.E., F.R.S.; Comdr. 0. S. Locker Lampson, C.M.G., D.S.O., M.P.; Maj. V. Cazalet, M.C., M.P.; Mrs. M. Corbett-Ashby; Mrs. D. F. Buxton. The chairman of the council is Professor W. Schiff, and the secretary, Miss E. Kolmer. I had a communication from Miss Kolmer, writing as secretary of the council of Austrians of Great Britain, which reached me after I left London, and I think it would be well for me to place the letter on the record because it will give the background to what I shall have to say in a moment. I quote:

Austrian Centre,

124, 126, 132, Westbourne Terrace,

28th November, 1941.

Mr. Coldwell, M.P.,

House of Commons.

Ottawa. Canada.

Dear Mr. Coldwell:

You will remember our talk on Austrian matters when I saw you in London. I wonder whether you have seen the Voice of Austria which is being published in the U.S.A. I am sending you herewith some extracts from this paper which I think are about to do great harm to the Austrian cause, because they alienate Czechs, Yugoslavs and any of our neighbour nations with whom we hope to live in peace, friendship and closest collaboration. We would be most grateful for anything you can do to make known our views on this subject.

I have before me a statement of the Free Austrian Movement giving their views regarding post-war Europe.

No national socialism for us, reformed or not, brown or of some other shade, neither with Hitler nor with Thiessen, nor with any of our home-grown Quislings. But we cannot decide to-day what Austria will look like after

the war and which form of relationship towards other nations she will choose. There are many possibilities, and it is not our business to decide on one now, and to try to impose it on the Austrian people later on. The only thing we can work for now is to give our country the chance to be free and independent again and to enable the Austrian people to decide their future. There are many divergent views about the country we are going to build after the war, but we rather welcome this variety. The more ideas are advanced on planning the future the more likely that we will find the best way in the end.

I point that out in contrast to the Voice of Austria to which I have referred and which is published in this country. Let me now read to the house a paragraph from the publication, published in Ottawa. The edition I have in my hand came to my desk this morning.

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
LIB

Paul Joseph James Martin

Liberal

Mr. MARTIN:

What was the last statement quoted from?

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

The last statement was from the press bulletin of the Council of Austrians in Great Britain issued last October, and I want to contrast it with the point of view which is expressed in this other expensively printed periodical.

Indeed, the foreign minister of Czechoslovakia and after Masaryk's premature death her president, had a very influential voice in Europe for twenty years. Many important decisions were based on his advice. It would perhaps be unjust to judge him by the final result. But there was something wrong in the fact that the leader of a small race-the Czechs number 7 million-directed the fate of a continent which is inhabited by more than 400 million people. This could not find a happy ending. It roused too many animosities. When Czechoslovakia was founded, the Czech spokesmen promised that they would copy the example of Switzerland. In foreign affairs this would have meant caution and reticence. Swiss statesmen were silent between the two wars, often more silent than we should have desired since they could have acted as a rich source of political wisdom. The leader of the Czechs had his finger in every pie. Old Austria-Hungary's foreign policy had been too active for a mixed community but she had had her duties as a great power. Czechoslovakia, not less mixed, made the same mistake without being obliged to. *

Since, as we have shown, the fiction of the Czechoslovak nation-

Note that-"the fiction of the Czechoslovak nation." I venture to say that there is no people on earth to whom we owe a greater obligation than to the people of Czechoslovakia. There are no people to whom we owe a greater measure of restitution than to those people who were thrown overboard in order to preserve a few months of uneasy peace in 1938. Yet we have a refugee of enemy nationality coming to this country and daring to write in the terms which I have just quoted. To continue:

Questions as Orders for Returns

Since, as we have shown, the fiction of the Czechoslovak nation was the root of those errors, it can be hoped that the abandonment of the pretence by Dr. Benes will inaugurate a new attitude towards the other races in the Danubian basin.

I am not going to read all the numerous extracts I have from the same periodical. It was published in New York; I have read it for the past eight months, and I had noted some of these statements. Again and again it came to the defence of Mussolini and of the fascists of Italy. I believe that this country should open its doors to refugees who have suffered from oppression on the continent of Europe, but if they do come we should expect them to play the game with our allies, and particularly with Czechoslovakia.

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
LIB

James Gray Turgeon

Liberal

Mr. TURGEON:

What is the date of that issue?

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
?

Leslie Gordon Bell

Mr. COLD WELL:

May, 1942. The article is found on page 3, entitled "A Fiction Abandoned."

The second article I want to refer to in this same issue is entitled "A Grievous Failure." It refers throughout sarcastically to the man who to-day is the deputy prime minister of Great Britain, a great figure in the cause of the united nations. It pokes fun at his idealism. No man in the Englishspeaking world is imbued with a greater sense of Christian idealism than Sir Stafford Cripps. Under the defence of Canada regulations we have the right to look into statements of this kind. I do not know why the writer left New York. Perhaps there were objections to articles of the kind appearing in this magazine in the United States-

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

What is

the name of the author?

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

Doctor Franz Klein.

Incidentally he is still of enemy nationality. .It seems a strange thing to me that we allow people of enemy nationality to come into this country and to write sarcastically of men responsible for the conduct of the cause of the united nations and to stir up strife among people of our allies in our own country. When I was in western Canada a short time ago I learnt that Czechs took exception to the kind of thing that was being published in this periodical, although I did not realize that it was now being published in Canada. I do not know upon what grounds we can keep our own citizens in concentration camps, and refugee friends of our cause who were picked up and sent to this country from England at the time of Dunkirk, who have been given a clean bill of health by the British authorities

after investigation of their cases, and yet allow people to come in freely and stir up strife in our country by publishing their objectionable ideas in papers issued in Ottawa. There is something wrong about that.

Let me refer to another case of the same sort, that of Otto Strasser. He lives in Montreal. He is still a nazi, as nazi as Otto Strasser ever was. He helped found the nazi party-

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Along with his

brother.

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

Yes, his brother was

liquidated by Hitler, and he hates Hitler because he was unable to undermine Hitler. He comes to this country, lives here and freely writes articles in newspapers; yet on the very flimsiest evidence our own people and friendly refugees are detained in internment camps. I do not know how many of the latter have been liberated and sent back to England in the last eighteen months, but I know that hundreds who were in civilian, internment camps here were taken back and are now working in munitions factories and even serving in the armed forces.

And we may have still in these internment camps men who have been given a clean bill of health by the British investigators. I want to bring this to the attention of the house on this occasion, and to the attention of the committee particularly; for while we ought, regardless of race, religion or nationality, to give refuge to those who suffer from oppression and persecution, yet I think that when such people come to this country they should at least refrain from sarcastic references to or criticism of the great leaders of the united nations; nor should they be allowed to stir up nationalistic animosities in this country.

I am not going to say anything in detail at this time about the defence of Canada regulations. They and the operations under them will be looked into by the committee. I think the time has come, however, when the members of the committee ought to go thoroughly into certain cases of people interned, and the committee ought to insist on being given access to the files in order that they may come to a proper conclusion regarding these cases. The attitude has always been taken that the committee was not permitted to view these files. I think that in some instances the files should be examined by the committee. I am not on the committee this year, so that perhaps I can say that quite freely. The committee should look into certain oases which have been reviewed, turned down, reviewed and turned down again.

I welcome the establishment of the committee. I think it is wise that at each session

Defence of Canada Regulations

during the war such a committee should be set up to carry on the work for which the committee is designed.

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):

It is pleasing to us to see that this committee is again going to be set up. We believe that since the committee last sat there have been changes in t-he defence of Canada regulations and in the interpretations placed upon those regulations and in the status of a great many people and organizations and periodicals which have been dealt with under those regulations. It seems to me that this committee should review with the most searching and objective care the whole question of organizations which we have declared illegal in Canada, and of the periodicals which we have banned both within and without Canada, and of the people whom we have consigned to internment camps on the basis of the defence of Canada regulations.

I am more than a little concerned and perturbed by reports which reach me from time to time. I am anxious lest we do a grave injustice to a number of people in Canada, and lest we thereby impair our war effort. Certain it is that when men have been punished for offences which to their fellows appear negligible, all those who know such people continue to be aggrieved and unhappy; and there spreads from those people an influence of deterioration in the morale of the country. This is not in the interests of Canada's maximum war effort.

I therefore welcome the appointment of the committee, and would urge that it study with the greatest care every aspect of the defence of Canada regulations, and their application to organizations in Canada, to periodicals which have been and are published in Canada, and to individuals who to-day are in our internment camps.

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
LIB

Arthur Wentworth Roebuck

Liberal

Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):

Mr. Speaker, in the first place let me welcome to the heavy task of administering the defence of Canada regulations our new Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). I have had something to do with internees, and with those who have been asking for a more liberal and, I think, a stricter administration of the regulations-stricter from the point of view of British justice. I have been impressed by the serious way in which the new minister has devoted himself to the difficult problems involved. I am sure I do not envy him his task. The whole subject is one of grave concern not only to himself and myself, but to all those who have some knowledge of British justice and procedure, and who are determined that we shall not establish in

Canada the gestapo methods of Europe, that we shall be just and kind but at the same time shall protect Canada against anticipated acts of sabotage and treason.

The subject is full of great difficulty, because the principles applied to the administration of criminal law are not applicable here. A man is interned under the defence of Canada regulations as a preventive rather than a punitive measure. The intention is not that of punishing an individual for something he has done; it is to prevent his doing that which it is anticipated he will or even may do, contrary to the best interests of the state. And so the general principles of trial, including the reading of a charge and the hearing of evidence, do not quite apply. Those who have been calling for open trials of men charged under the regulations probably have not thought through the real problem before us. It has occurred to me at times that were some of the objectors placed in positions of responsibility and informed that some person might do something contrary to the interest of the state, they would, perhaps, take a different attitude. It is not likely that they would wait until some alien enemy had blown up a factory before taking action to restrain him. It is more likely that even the most radical critic of the regulations would restrain the offender before the act was committed, rather than charge him with the offence after the damage had been accomplished.

Yet, while this is so, I have never been entirely satisfied either with the regulations or with their administration. I think section 21 is far too general and sweeping. I should like to see the committee apply itself to defining the offences, if offences they are, under which a man may be interned. It may be a difficult task, but it is not an impossible one. It seems to me there should be greater particularity as to the grounds upon which internment may be ordered. The general principles upon which those in authority act can be set out with a great deal of clearness, and the committee should work to that end.

It seems to me that a man should never be interned for something for which he may be charged. Someone who has used foolish language in a bar room debate, or something of that kind, as sometimes happens, should not be picked up by the police and just spirited away. He has committed an offence and should be tried in open court. There have been occasions when, confronted with those two courses of action, the department has chosen internment rather than trial; and I suggest to the department it would be far better to put a man on trial when trial is possible. The evidence should be brought out in public and

Defence of Canada Regulations

the public satisfied as to the justice of the decision; and the man should be put away in gaol rather than placed in an internment camp.

I believe too the public has been disturbed on one or two occasions when trial has been resorted to, a conviction has not been secured and immediately following acquittal a man has been picked up and interned.

The great difficulty with internment is the mystery surrounding the procedure, the lack of publicity allowed, and the fact that no one knows with any degree of certainty the grounds upon which a man has been deprived of his liberty. He is picked up silently, spirited away, and that is the last of him. One may write the department and learn that the case has been reviewed but that for the moment the authorities do not think it necessary to give any further information. That is the substance of what one is told.

It may be difficult indeed to say why some men who have been interned quite properly have been so interned. Nevertheless the secrecy surrounding the administration of the regulation is not in the public interest when it can possibly be avoided. Where possible in my opinion statements should be made and given publicity, explaining why certain men are placed behind barbed wire and kept there. It is most important that the public mind be not disturbed in this connection, and that there be not spread among ordinary people suspicions of injustice or the presence of ulterior motives.

I think that our administration could be improved. At the present moment the Minister of Justice retains the last say. Perhaps that is necessary, but if it is, it is necessary only in a few cases. The tribunals have been too few; they have been overworked. I have thought that they should be manned by the highest judicial officers whom we can find in the Dominion of Canada, men who bear the highest reputation and who carry the confidence of the people of Canada in the highest degree. The tribunals cannot act entirely in public; they must act at least in part in secret. The reasons for their decisions cannot always be explained and published, and the citizens of Canada are expected to accept their decisions and to rely upon their good faith.

So I say that our tribunals should be increased in number, and I believe that recently more men have been acting on the tribunals. I urge upon the department that every precaution be taken to secure for these tribunals men of the highest possible reputation. Having done this, I think it would be in the interests of the department, certainly to the comfort of the minister and the peace of mind of those, who like myself, are con-

cerned, and to the general confidence of the people of Canada, if decisions of the tribunals were taken as final, except in extraordinary cases where reasons can be given for the minister refusing to accept the recommendations of the tribunals.

It is not good enough to say that some evidence must be secret. I should think that a judge can be counted upon to keep secrets of state just as well as a policeman. Reasons of state which should influence the results of a hearing can be communicated to a judge just as safely as they can be communicated to a minister of the crown. I have no doubt that in both cases the secrecy would be respected. Therefore I should like to see done the things I have enumerated: provide stronger tribunals; provide more tribunals; place greater confidence in the tribunals; and have the decisions of the tribunals made final.

I should like to see this committee inquire into a number of key cases, such as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has suggested. They could be picked out by chance, and then the committee could make a report on them to this house. I have been interested in a number of cases, but I have never been able to get to the bottom of them because I could not get all the evidence. But this committee should be able to get the evidence. If its authority is not now sufficient, I suggest to the committee that they ask for added authority and that they apply their minds to a number of cases, particularly where it is suggested that ulterior motives have influenced the action taken by the police or the department.

It has been stated that men have been picked up because they were bootleggers. If a man is a bootlegger, if he has defied the laws of the country, we do not have the same confidence in him as we would had he a good reputation. If a good reputation stands a man in good stead in time of trouble, then a bad reputation is likely to stand him in bad stead. When you find that a man with a bad reputation has been picked up and you do not know all the facts, you are likely to attribute his incarceration to his bad reputation, and that may be unjust to the department.

I have known of cases where the police, after failing to get convictions, have succeeded in imprisoning men under these regulations. I would like to see the committee make a few inquiries as to whether such suspicions are justified or unjustified. I would like to see the department relieve itself of responsibility in individual cases. The imprisoning of men is not properly a ministerial responsibility; it is a judicial responsibility. I do not see why ministers of justice want to keep these deci-

Defence of Canada Regulations

sions in their own hands; they should get rid of them. Keep supervision, if you like; but ministers should rid themselves of the task of making the individual decisions. Let that be done by the tribunals. I cannot see any real reason, either in the practical administration of the act or because of principles of justice, for making any great difference between an alien enemy and a naturalized or native Canadian citizen. At the present time, those who are citizens may have their cases reviewed by the tribunals, but those who have not achieved British citizenship have no right to go beyond the decision of the police as confirmed by the department. A non-citizen may have lived in this country for many years; he may have acted as a citizen for years, but when he is picked up under this act by the police he has no appeal. The only thing he can do is to argue with some officer in the department, who usually refers him to the mounted police.

I know that you can find a grave distinction between a British subject and a non-British citizen, particularly if the latter is an alien enemy; technically, an alien enemy has no rights in this country, but that is not so morally. Such a man is a human being; he may have a wife and children; he may have behind him a long record of good citizenship. I do not see any reason for making this marked distinction, which is purely technical, between a man who has achieved nationality and a man who has not. I can see no reason why an alien enemy should not be treated as we would treat him in the courts. We make no distinction there; in theory every man is innocent until he is proven guilty. We should be ashamed to draw a distinction in the courts between a British subject and a foreigner living in this country. I should like to see the committee study this feature and see if it is not possible to give to the non-citizen the same rights of appeal, the same review of evidence and the same impartial decision by judicial officers that is given to our own citizens.

Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, in the first place I

desire to congratulate my good friend the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) upon the judicious remarks that he has made. He speaks from a lengthy experience at the bar, as former attorney general for his province, and with a particular knowledge of his subject, and therefore what he has said must be considered in due course.

The aim of the defence regulations is evidently to prevent subversive propaganda during the war. It is essential that order be maintained within this country in these difficult times. But the fact that we are at war

does not change in the slightest degree the principle of law that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty, and therefore a man must not be considered an unworthy Canadian citizen simply because he has a name that is difficult to pronounce. People of various racial origins have come to this country to make Canada their own country. It is their country of choice, and at heart they are good Canadians. There is more broad-mindedness in the United States than in Canada with regard to such people. Anyone who looks at the names of the advisers to the President of the United States must realize that at Washington the racial origin of a man makes no difference whatever provided he, proves to be a worthy citizen of the United States.

Now I want to say a word on behalf of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), in his defence, strange as it may seem. About a year ago the hon. gentleman mentioned a very ordinary fact, a fact known to all of us, that there were young men from other dominions training in Canada under the empire air training scheme. To mention that was not a sin; it was not even a misdemeanour. But as it happened, there was an order or an instruction prohibiting the mentioning of that fact. This order or instruction had been issued by the information bureau or the censor's office in the regulations that it sends out to the newspapers, and as the hon. gentleman had infringed one of those regulations-

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Had what?

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I will not say infringed. I will just say that he mentioned that fact. I do not blame him for doing so. I am speaking in his defence; my hon. friend will see how it ends. I will start again to make myself clear. The information bureau or the censor's office sends regulations or instructions to all the newspapers of Canada. They are numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on; and regulation or instruction No. 64, if my memory serves me-it might have been 62 , 63, 64, or 65-was to the effect that no one must say anything in public about the personnel of the empire air training scheme.

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. No such directive was ever issued that no newspaper should give currency to such a report. I deny that either directly or indirectly did I at any time receive from any source anywhere any directive from the censor or anybody else in authority in this country with reference to that matter.

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I thank the hon. gentleman for what he has said, because it gives

Defence of Canada Regulations

more weight to my argument. Of course, I did not say that the order or instruction was sent to him. They are sent to every newspaper in the country, and there was certainly an order of the kind. The hon. gentleman simply said something that might have been said by anybody in the country without offence to anybody and without injury to anybody or to the progress of the war. But just because he said that, it was stated by a minister of the crown that Hitler was the leader of the opposition's latest recruit. I repeated that myself, and I confess I did wrong to say a thing like that about the hon. gentleman because he simply mentioned a fact that was known to all of us, and by so doing, of course, he was not recruiting Hitler into the Tory party. Nobody can now be blamed for doing the same thing the hon. gentleman did because this particular order was afterwards cancelled. So that there is no guilt about it. But my conclusion is this, that we must not lack a sense of proportion in our interpretation of the defence regulations.

I regret that the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is leaving the chamber because I was just going to say something about him. I think he completely lacked a sense of proportion when he suggested that we should worship a man like Sir Stafford Cripps. I do not think he is worse than anyone else; but why should anyone worship anyone else in this world? Such an attitude prevents criticism. I would tell the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that the brightest lady journalist of America, a lady whose pen is much sharper than that of Dorothy Thompson, Miss Judith Robinson, has expressed her views about Sir Stafford Cripps in all fairness, and she pokes a little bit of fun at him. That is no offence, any more than it was an offence for the leader of the opposition to say what he did about the empire air training scheme. Miss Judith Robinson wrote in the News of Toronto, of March 14: Enthusiasts for change-any-place-but-Ottawa are doing a lot to drown Sir Stafford Cripps' real virtues in pails of gush over attributes he hasn't and never has had. Tile new leader of the British House of Commons is not a "winning personality." He has a face like a stage undertaker's and a manner like a high church curate's. He is not a great speaker. He is repetitive and addicted to second-hand phrases. He is not, despite a snob-souled local press's blurbs, "an aristocrat." He is the son of a wealthy man whose father made money in shipping.

Sir Stafford would be frank to admit that no English business men ever pursued profit further from the aristocratic ideal of noblesse oblige, or from ordinary human compassion for that matter, than did the big shipmasters of the nineteenth century.

[Mr. Pouliot.l

He would admit it because honesty is a virtue he possesses in his own right, not his ancestors'. He has other virtues that should prove useful to England at this hour; an unswerving purpose, a logical mind, cold judgment and a great lack of pity for incompetents, however well-paid and influential. Canadian sentimentalists who have been cooing-

That is fine.

over Sir Stafford "the labour aristocrat", might spend their time better trying to guess whose fault it is that Ottawa is as short of Crippses as it is short of Churchills.

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he not think there is a difference between poking fun at ourselves, or having a member of the family poke fun at us, and having a guest poke fun at us?

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I am a little hard of hearing. If my hon. friend will repeat what he said I shall be thankful to him.

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

I ask my hon. friend if he did not think there was a difference between having a member of our own family poke fun at another member of the family and having an uninvited guest poke fun at a member of the family? I think there is a big difference there.

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

It is not a matter of guests; it is a matter of judgment on a man who plays an important role in politics at the present time. But because a politician is not a member of our House of Commons does not mean that we have not a right to pass judgment on his qualifications. Besides that, I wonder what has happened to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar; for a certain time he has been burning incense under the noses of people who are too far away to smell the perfume.

Topic:   DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS
Subtopic:   APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER AND REVIEW REGULATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
Permalink

May 4, 1942