July 2, 1943

OFFICIAL REPORT

FOURTH SESSION-NINETEENTH PARLIAMENT 7 GEORGE VI, 1943 VOLUME V, 1943 COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE SECOND DAY OF JULY, 1943, TO THE TWENTY-SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY, 1944, INCLUSIVE BEING VOLUME CCXXXYIII FOR THE PERIOD 1875-1943 INDEX ISSUED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME OTTAWA EDMOND CLOUTIER PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 1944 CANADA


House of Commons Bebates



Friday, July 2, 1943


PRIVILEGE

MR. LACOMBE-TRANSLATION OF REMARKS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 25

IND

Liguori Lacombe

Independent Liberal

Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a questioa of privilege. Last Wednesday I withdrew unconditionally a statement which I had made in French in this house on June 25. Now, using my privilege as a member of parliament, I should like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to be just and fair to me. Speaking in this house on June 28 the Prime Minister quoted from the English debates of June 25 last. This citation was as follows:

We have here in the cabinet three new millionaires who have made their money since the war's outbreak. We shall denounce them at the proper time and place. Fortunes are being built up.

That citation is reported at page 4072 of the English Debates of June 28, 1943. This is an absolutely false translation of a part of my speech delivered in French on June 25. Consequently I should like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister to withdraw this citation or to give instructions to the translator to correct this translation.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. LACOMBE-TRANSLATION OF REMARKS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 25
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

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

I am sure the house would wish me to be absolutely fair with the hon. gentleman, and no one is more anxious to be so than myself. I would remind him that the citation which I used on Wednesday was the citation as it appears in Hansard in French and I used only that citation and had reference to no other in the remarks I made. It was pointed out at the time that the French translation, in the mind of the hon. member who has just spoken, and I think I may say in the minds also of many other hon. members, was not a correct translation. But that was in no sense my fault or the fault of the government; it is a matter which concerns the translation staff of the house. I would say for that reason

I think my hon. friend, in desiring to have any correction made, so far as Hansard is concerned, should address the Speaker of the house rather than myself. He will find His Honour the Speaker quite ready, I am sure, to see that an accurate translation is given. If he adopts that procedure he will find, I am sure, on the part of all there will be every disposition to see that a proper translation is substituted for the one that appears in Hansard.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. LACOMBE-TRANSLATION OF REMARKS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 25
Permalink
IND

Liguori Lacombe

Independent Liberal

Mr. LACOMBE:

I ask Your Honour to give instructions to the translators to correct this translation. [DOT]

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. LACOMBE-TRANSLATION OF REMARKS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 25
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Vien (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member has made the request of the Chair that .there should be a proper translation of the words that were used in the motion which the right hon. the Prime Minister brought before the house,. I would say to the hon. gentleman that I checked the translation, and I am satisfied that the translation in English of the hon. gentleman's speeech was not a correct translation of the French text. With what the hon. gentleman has said, supplemented by the Prime Minister, and also what I now say, I think there has been sufficient reference to justify the hon. gentleman on the question of privilege, and to make clear that the English text was not a proper translation of the French text.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. LACOMBE-TRANSLATION OF REMARKS IN DEBATE ON JUNE 25
Permalink

MR. LACOMBE-REFERENCE TO EDITORIAL IN MONTREAL GAZETTE OF JULY 1

IND

Liguori Lacombe

Independent Liberal

Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):

On a question of privilege, the Montreal Gazette, in the edition of July 1, 1943, has an editorial under the title, "Lacombe Eats His Words". The first sentence of the editorial reads:

Liguori Lacombe has eaten his words to the last shameful morsel. . . .

The last sentence of the editorial reads:

The important thing was that an irresponsible slander should be branded as such.

Using my privilege as a member of the House of Commons I ask that this statement be withdrawn, and I give the Montreal Gazette

Privilege-Mr. Graydon

until Wednesday next at three o'clock to withdraw it; otherwise I shall ask the Chair to have the reporter summoned before the bar of the House of Commons.

Topic:   MR. LACOMBE-REFERENCE TO EDITORIAL IN MONTREAL GAZETTE OF JULY 1
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Vien (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member has made a request of me that I should do something in connection with the Montreal Gazette. I have no power or control over the Montreal Gazette or any comments it may make.

Topic:   MR. LACOMBE-REFERENCE TO EDITORIAL IN MONTREAL GAZETTE OF JULY 1
Permalink

MR. GRAYDON-REFERENCE TO EDITORIAL IN THE ' TORONTO "GLOBE AND MAH,"


On the orders of the day:


NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

I rise to a question of privilege based upon an editorial appearing in to-day's issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail, which reflects upon His Majesty's Loyal Opposition and myself as leader. The editorial, among other things, says that:

Last week Doctor W. J. Edmonston Scott, M.A., who served at Ottawa as a censor in languages of central and western Europe from 1939 to 1943, supplied in a letter published in this newspaper definite confirmation of the validity of its charges about the government's scandalously inquisitorial abuse of the powers of censorship conferred upon it by the War Measures Act. Doctor Scott did not merely give general support to our allegations, but he rovided very damning evidence to justify them y quoting a special memorandum, dated May 1, 1942, which was issued to examiners, and ran as follows:

"All letters observed in the mails containing information regarding women's political activities in all parts of the world and women's activities in connection with post-war reconstruction should be specially submitted to this office and the file reference C.11292-38 quoted."

No denial has been made of this allegation of Doctor Scott, and presumably no denial is possible. It is so disturbing that even a staunch supporter of the government like the Winnipeg Free Press has been moved to describe it as a gross abuse of the powers of censorship, upon which the fullest possible light should be directed, and to demand that the Minister of National War Services, who is responsible for the censorship, should be cross-examined in great detail about the scope of its operations.

If a parliamentary opposition has one duty more compelling than another, it is to act as a vigilant watchdog against all unwarranted governmental assaults upon fundamental principles of liberty. But, so far, from the opposition benches not even a whisper of protest has been heard against this proved assault. All the opposition groups have a measure of culpability in the matter, as any of their members could have raised the issue. But a special degree of blame for a deplorable laxity must attach to Mr. Graydon, because the leader of the official opposition has by tradition a special responsibility for bringing a government to book for such arrogant abuse of its powers as has been revealed, especially when they strike at the roots of personal liberties. He should have lost no time in proceeding to cross-examine the Minister of National War Services about this matter.

I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the editorial in question is evidently based upon a misunderstanding of the position of the opposition and myself in this matter, and I desire to deny the charge that we have been in any way remiss in our duties .with respect to the issue in question.

On Wednesday last, after consultation with me, the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) took the necessary steps to ask for the production of a copy of all censorship orders, regulations or instructions issued under government authority since the outbreak of war. This appears in Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, July 1. The hon. member's motion was prompted largely by our desire to have a proper basis for examination of the ministry with respect to the allegations raised by Doctor Scott and certain newspapers, particularly the Winnipeg Free Press and the Toronto (Globe and Mail. We felt that a fuller and more complete examination of censorship matters generally and this case in particular could best be accomplished when the papers asked for had been tabled and a more appropriate opportunity presented itself for careful and detailed examination of the ministry. I rise therefore on this question of privilege to put the record straight so far as our position as an opposition is concerned.

Topic:   MR. GRAYDON-REFERENCE TO EDITORIAL IN THE ' TORONTO "GLOBE AND MAH,"
Permalink

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE


First and second reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Fontaine.


TAX CONVENTION ACT . CANADA-UNITED STATES CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL FOR AVOIDANCE OP DOUBLE TAXATION AND PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION


Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 119, respecting a certain tax convention and protocol between Canada and the United States of America, signed at Washington in the United States of America, on the fourth day of March, 1942. He said: The Canada-United States of America tax convention was considered by this house on June 8, 1942, and a resolution was adopted at that time approving the convention and protocol. The Department of Justice has recently given the opinion that, in order to give legal effect to the convention, it is necessary that it be confirmed by statute, and for that reason this bill is being introduced. Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. Dominion Day


July 2, 1943