Hugh Keenleyside, interviewed by Ann Sunhara, 23 November 1977
Abstract
Hugh Keenleyside
describes the Board of Review’s investigation on the illegal entry of Japanese
Canadians in 1937. He also gives insights regarding the Department of Labour, External
Affairs, RCMP, and Department of Defence. He gives insights into
Ian Mackenzie
and his association with the White Canada Association, the Pope’s stance,
and
Mackenzie King
’s stance.
Ann
and
Hugh
discuss the similarities between the Canadian and American internment policies.
Hugh
then describes
Mackenzie King
’s attitude towards
A.W. Neil
and
Tom Reid
, and relief of
Angus McInnis
’s attitude against harsh measures. He then states his impression of whether
there were any alternatives to Internment.
Hugh
expresses that though the view of the Co-operative Commonwealth Foundation
(CCF) party was strong in
BC
they were not equally as strong federally.
Hugh
mentions his post-war occupation and his opinion of
Norman Robertson
and
Pickersgill
. (This oral history is from the
NNMCC
's Sunahara Collection. Accession No. 2018.16.1.70.7)
00:00:00.000
Hugh Keenleyside (HK)
1937 the government being concerned about all the charges that were being made about
the illegal entry of Orientals into the western part, western part of
Canada
. Set up a
Board of Review
which consisted of myself as chairman and
Inspector Fish
of the
RCMP
as a member. And uh
Short pause.
I forget what the name was... And yes, and
Fred Taylor
, the head of the Immigration Service in
Vancouver
as a board. We made an investigation into the situation in
British Columbia
. Found that some illegal entries had been detected but it was not a particularly
serious matter. And the steps had been taken which were apparently pretty effective
in closing it down. But that’s all embodied in the report which was made in 1937 which
is referred to from time-to-time subsequently.
Ann Sunahara (AS)
Right. Um, I didn’t know under the (?)
Board of Review
(?) investigation in the report.
And that, yeah. I understand (?) that’s right, reported in ‘38.
HK
I’m not sure about the dates now but it was certainly ‘37 when (?) was appointed (?)
right on the call. I have a copy of it in the office.
AS
Whispers: Good.
Um-
Missing audio at 00:02:13.435.
I get the impression from reading, I have just been reading the um some of the minutes
from the (?) parliamentary committee on Orientals as they are summarized in the
Department of National Defense
document on. I get the impression from those minutes that within that committee there
seemed to be a departmental variant in the perception of both Japanese and Chinese.
The reports that are listed there by the National Defense... No, the
Department of Labour
and
Fisheries
relying heavily on the
White Canada Association
for its information. Um, and I have had the impression from reading the
Department of External Affairs
documents that yourself and
Dr. Angus
were perhaps one would say diametrically opposed to the position of the White Canada
Association. Um, since I feel that differences within government like that are something
I should consider, would you please comment on that?
HK
Well it’s so long ago that I don’t remember very much of the (?) for what took place
in that respect. The
Department of Labour
I think was quite (?) on the subject and was willing to take almost any charge at
face value because basically they were opposed to the immigration of Orientals into
British Columbia
and to... susceptible to the allegations of the Orientals who were in BC they were
undercutting White labour in component with the population. But beyond that sort of
generalization, I’m afraid I don’t remember much about it. And the
Department of National Defense
, my impression is that they were much more reasonable and at least they supported
the
RCMP
in its statements made repeatedly that there was no subversion going on among the
Japanese on the west coast. The RCMP in my opinion behaved very responsibly about
it right through all (?) admiration for the (?) which they stood up against the kind
of charges that were being made for which there was absolutely no proof. The (?) extent
the Department of National Defense modified the RCMP’s stand. I don’t remember but
I don’t think it was very important.
AS
00:05:13.091
I see. My sit with the Department of National Defense was in 1938 (?) earlier.
Ian Mackenzie
was still minister. Some of the documents written there tended to reflect his views
rather than those persons like
General Pope
.
00:05:13.091
HK
Yeah so I think
Pope
, as far as I can recall, was quite responsible and reasonable in his interpretation
with the material that was available to.
Ian Mackenzie
of course was a
Vancouver
politician and for the most part he was sympathetic to the anti-Oriental feeling
that was represented by people and things like the
White Canada Organizations
which was a disgrace to our country.
Missing audio. 00:05:45.187
AS
I’d like to ask you to cast your mind back to after
Pearl Harbour
when the task fell upon your shoulders of interpreting the position of the Japanese
Canadian for the
Department of External Affairs
. Um, I understand that the basis of your (?) the minutes of the meeting of what
was held in
Ottawa
in January of 1942. That one of the basis for the argument was the dangers of
action in
Canada
to prisoners-of-war because of
Hong Kong
what were now in Japanese hands.
HK
Mhm.
AS
Um and this is extra. Quite a strong argument I understand in
Mackenzie King
’s diary is indication he took it to heart. However on February 19th, 1942, the Americans
decided on a mass evacuation also.
AS
King’s refers to the dangers of moving the Japanese Canadians being a very difficult
issue. Especially very well the fact that... of the prisoners in Japanese hands.
HK
I’ve never seen the diaries (?) nothing about this?
AS
Mumbles.
HK
Oh.
AS
Mhm.
HK
Mumbles.
AS
He referred to in the 1942 diaries and again in I think it’s ‘46, ‘47 he compliments
you very highly.
HK
Mumbles.
AS
Well, I... I can look at the archives for it.
HK
Mumbles.
Well I'd like to-
Missing audio. 00:07:46.719
HK
(?) and this is one of the things I would like to see is if I could get the-
Missing audio. 00:07:55.657
AS
The argument, I gather it was one of the strongest arguments against evacuation was
the effects on the prisoners-of-war. When the Americans went ahead with their evacuation,
with their decision to evacuate um-
Missing audio. 00:08:11.608
AS
What effect do you feel the Americans evacuation had on your arguments and on the
Canadian situation?
HK
Long pause.
I don’t know if I have anything (?) to say about that. I suppose that it strengthened
the view that the Canadians would isolate the Japanese residents without having too
many problems about it because it was being done by the Americans.
AS
Do you think that it would have shot the argument of protection of prisoners?
HK
To some extent because by that time of course the war was in a pretty... pretty bitter
active stage. And I think the Japanese would probably be more concerned about other
things then they were about that. So that, I think that the likely impact on the Japanese
in government or outside of government that would’ve been reduced. Not that they wouldn’t
have noticed. They certainly wouldn’t have used it for propaganda. I don’t think they
would’ve necessarily (?) so outraged by it that they didn’t want to make some special
provision against the Canadians and (?).
AS
Mhm. Quite, quite-
HK
This is purely a logical rather than historical. I’m not sure.
AS
Right. I understand that.
Missing audio. 00:09:48.106
AS
Are you aware of whether the Cabinet knew the
US
decision when it made its decision to evacuate?
Short pause.
HK
00:10:26.847
No, I can't answer that. Certainly there’s no doubt that they knew it was being discussed
there. But how many days in advance or weeks in advance (?) decision had taken (?).
The steps that were going to be taken in the United States, I don’t know. I wouldn’t
be at all surprised if they learned it at first in the
New York Times
. That I can’t be sure of, I don’t know.
00:10:26.847
AS
(?)
HK
I don’t think they did know.
AS
Okay I just want to... There were lots of indications in the documents that they knew
the army was going to do the evacuation when they made the Canadian decision. The
Canadian army of course didn’t go along with the idea. But uh it’s a hole I’ve been
trying to plug in (?).
HK
No, sorry no help (?).
AS
I understand that most of the relations with the Americans on this was done verbally
between
Norman Robertson
and
Mr. Moffatt
.
HK
Yes, I would think that’s probably true. I had some part (?) but preoccupied with
other things. My chief participation in the Japanese aspects of it were pre-war, leading
up to the war, trying to forecast what they were going to do and so on. After the
war started it was
mumbles
.
AS
I see. In the pre-war period, how would you describe, say, the position of
Mackenzie King
on this subject? As far as you could tell.
HK
He was hoping it would go away. I think it’s um fair to say he tried to cool down
the feelings in
British Columbia
. (?) for the members in his party in particular. Tried to be rational about it. I
think that there’s no doubt he was pleased with the attitude of
Angus MacInnis
for example of the
CCF
. Strong positive line about proper treatment of the Japanese in Canada. And he was
(?) distressed by the attitude of people like
A. W. Neil
, a member from the Albertan.... He was an Albertan. And by Tom Reid. This guy was
the (?) for
New Westminster
. One of them (?) fired (?) or something.
Missing audio. 00:12:57.644
AS
It’s very difficult to tell from his diaries exactly what (?) King’s were because
of course when the decision was being made, the conscription crisis was on.
HK
Mhm.
AS
And that was a far more important to King politically than people in BC, coastal BC.
HK
Yes, see, well the decision was (?) in the end. Move the Japanese was certainly a
political decision. There wasn’t any (?) physical (?) no evidence of any real subversive
activities among the Japanese. It was done simply because of the outcry in British
Columbia. He and the people who were not personally hostile to the Orientals were
so afraid after
Pearl Harbour
that there would be an attack on the coast by Japanese forces. Feeling as those in
notion and perhaps to some extent logically some of the Japanese
mumbles
support the invaders when the invasion took place. All of that, (?) the feeling of
fear as well as hostility of course.
AS
Do you feel they were running out of viable alternatives?
Short pause.
HK
00:15:12.281
Given the way the sentiment was being heated up by political, or for political purposes.
I suspect in the end there wasn’t any alternatives (?) pretty well agitated because
(?). They see even the people who were responsible and straightforward decent citizens
they were so beat-up by this and by all the (?) being made which many of them assumed
(?).
00:15:12.281
HK
All of this (?) would’ve been very difficult indeed to withstand. (?) I guess
McInnis
who led the forces to (?) sensibility, survived and was re-elected in a couple of
elections in which this was a serious question. But in general, knowing the impacts
and a lot of the concerns (?) in the province who’s (?) super heated but the government
really didn’t have much of an alternative. And they tried, you know. They tried to
cool it down. But (?) they had
Howard Green
, a decent person, (?) Stevens, all those hysterical (?).
AS
Do you think their hysteria was based in parliament for the desire to make political
hay out of it or to keep their opponents from making political hay out of it?
HK
You mean like the movement taking the Japanese out?
Ann interjects: Yeah.
Oh I think so. I think that with certainty. The part of it, I think that they probably
felt it. They had to do something in order to pacify the fears as well as the hostility
on the coast, in (?).
AS
Mhm.
HK
The fact that it was going to be politically (?) not unthought of.
AS
Well I know it wasn’t unthought of.
HK
Yeah.
Laughs.
AS
I’ve read their papers.
HK
Mumbles.
AS
Well, the basic problem I have is of course is that although it really shouldn't (?)
the view of 1930, I really shouldn’t have difficulty which is of course understanding
how people could get so upset over such a remote possibility. But then of course,
hindsight is blinding as far as historians-
HK
They didn’t know it was remote at the time.
AS
Yes.
HK
Especially when you had such things like dropping a couple of shells in (?).
AS
Right.
HK
This was proof the Japanese, quote-proof-on-quote, that the Japanese were thinking
of and were probably getting ready to attack the cities on the coast. Having in mind
what the Japanese had done in places like
Nanjing
and elsewhere, it was understandable they got (?) about it. My own family was in
perfect peace following (?). They were in
Vancouver
and there were many people who were more (?) racial prejudice. But they were certainly
very worried about (?) after
Pearl Harbour
(?) destroy most of the American fleet!
AS
Oh not quite, not quite. Um-
Missing audio. 00:18:44.705
HK
Reveal the people in British Columbia had finally recognized the danger.
AS
Mhm.
HK
And decide to get these people out. Was proof to people in BC that there was danger
and they had their prejudices substantiated by the government sanctions.
AS
I see. So while... while removing for protection, the vic(tim), I mean the person
being protected
short pause
became the enemy.
HK
Most of them were deserted.
Mumbles.
AS
Mumbles.
HK
There was of course (mumbles) all together and that was welfare the Japanese (?) in
BC
. And that’s what they call pervasive. But it’s worth something to look at.
AS
00:20:08.509
Yes, I understand that was the philosophy behind people like
Grant MacNeil
who supported the idea of evacuation.
00:20:08.509
AS
Yeah because I was trying to find out why
Mr. MacNeil
had supported and
David Lewis
tells me that MacNeil felt that it was such a danger that something had to be done.
HK
Well, I think that’s fair enough. When we were (?) I don’t know.
Missing audio. 00:20:34.619
AS
Yeah. I was quite impressed actually by both him and uh (?)
T. C. Douglas
. Although many important parts, they differed greatly. I think perhaps because
David Lewis
at the time was Deputy Secretary (?) purely political problems whereas T. C. Douglas
was (?) the constituency and had a different set of problems to cope.
HK
I don’t know what
Tommy Douglas
’ attitude was towards the whole thing. Was he in favour of the expulsion?
AS
No. No, he said that unanimously in
Ottawa
the MPs lined up behind
Mr. McInnis
. In McInnis’ presence he said it was almost impossible to have any other views because-
HK
Such a (?) matter I guess. But wasn’t
Grant MacNeil
a member at that time?
AS
He was a MLA here.
HK
Oh he wasn’t in the General House?
AS
The issue at the (?) that produced the split between the
CCF Party
between the BC branch and the federal branch which took a little while to patch up.
HK
(?) the other party too.
AS
Yeah, I can imagine that.
AS
January. The January meeting?
HK
I was going to say February but anyway, there’s a (?) and the provincial people were
led... Well
Ian Mackenzie
presided and I think Julius Pearson was the British Columbian spokesman.
AS
I have the minutes which indicate well which say the
RCMP
and
General Pope
and (?) were happy with the way things were. And I have post-memoirs which say, when
he said that the BC people got very upset and they (?) it the next day, till the next
day when the
External Affairs
gave their point of view.
HK
Mhm.
AS
I did not see who presented whether it was yourself or
Norman Robertson
.
AS
Well he’s listed as being a Conservative advisory participant.
HK
He may have been, I don’t remember. But if so, he didn’t play much of a role and
Henry Angus
did
mumbles
. I did enough to draw the (?) from
George Peasron
which I was (?) about. He was a close friend of my fathers (mumbles). He came by
mumbles
.
AS
Um, would you happen to know which of the BC representatives was supposed to have
said it would be a good advantage to get rid of them out of the province? A good way
to (?) out of BC and the economic (?) represented?
HK
No, I don’t know who said it.
AS
General Pope
doesn’t say in his memos.
HK
That was at the meeting was it?
AS
Uh, following the decision on the first day I guess. Associated event in the evening.
HK
No, I don’t...
Henry Angus
(?) he and the censors
mumbles
. You have some (?)?
HK
I see. Well he would be very, very helpful.
AS
Alright.
HK
Incidentally, I've got to warn that he’s very deaf. Really, you almost have to yell
at him.
AS
00:25:00.512
Robert England
mentioned that to me.
00:25:00.512
HK
Oh alright, that’s good. Uh,
Henry
’s mind
mumbles
all kinds of correspondence (?) I asked (?) is mine (mumbles) hesitation that wasn’t
so characteristic before.
AS
Robert England suggests I should prepare written questions.
HK
I think that would be a very good idea. He has a lot of information on materials about
this. Have you got Fred Saward on your list?
AS
Mhm.
HK
In fact he’s very (?).
AS
In one of the-
Missing audio. 00:25:50.679
HK
Henry and (?) and I interacted in the
House of Commons
(?) the Japanese government.
AS
I was just reading something about that, yes. Wilson got it started or something.
Didn’t he?
HK
Hm, it was
Tom Reid
(?) started. But I haven’t seen the text for that for 25 years I suppose. (?) run
across it to (?) up to debate.
AS
Sure. You may be interested to know that Hartfold Wilson used the same sentence-
Missing audio. 00:26:42.180
AS
Department of National Defense
on microphone in the archives right here in
Victoria
. (?) had it sent to.
HK
Oh that would be wonderful. He says the same thing about (?)?
AS
Well it’s (?) specifically. And it’s because your, he says it’s because your father
was uh trading with Japan and uh-
HK
My father-
AS
I think it was (?). (?) was your father into? I don't know how but he manages to.
Missing audio. 00:27:13.242
HK
And then the personal references for my book (mumbles) it was very interesting (?)
about himself. Particularly (?) just because (?) intended to be a common area under
the fundamental causes and later policies in
Vancouver
(?) personal matter. But I have it mixed up with
Ian Mackenzie
(?) but the basis of it is they don’t go debate the events of the war
mumbles
. The story is (?) person wants a Canadian
mumbles
war. (?) in person. It’s all like that.
umbles
accusations of (?) in favour of the Japanese government.
Missing audio. 00:28:21.784
HK
But of course as (?) much easier to ban somebody (?) identify the (mumble). Much easier
to say (?) in
BC
than somewhere off in the East
mumbles
.
AS
Mumbles.
Um, (?) went to the
Department of External Affairs
after
Pearl Harbour
you say? Or...
Missing audio. 00:28:59.492
HK
Mumbles.
HK
Sampson?
AS
Uh, Sampson if he... (?) point in time. There were only five of them.
HK
Yeah.
AS
I wonder if he, whether his absence might have helped tip the committee into it’s
very small support (?) fishing boats must impounded and Japanese males (?)
HK
00:30:22.580
I suppose
mumbles
. I think he had quite an influence in inspiring
mumbles
. I don’t remember (?) before or after the (?).
00:30:22.580
AS
Actually, I should send you a
mumbles
.
HK
(?)
Missing audio. 00:30:34.643
HK
The invitation to the (?) Department (?) colleagues and friends
mumbles
back to
Ottawa
. Ottawa had
mumbles
.
AS
After you, uh, (?) the Japanese problem
Hugh interuppts
temporarily solved by creating more problems. (?) the evacuation. By then, you were
put on the, what, UN section or?
HK
Er, I was mixed up with with a variety of odd jobs. One that was (?) spending some
time on was the (?).
AS
Mhm.
HK
As a member of the Canadian section of the Canada-US
mumbles
. And then I was also made, well some peripheral
mumbles
. And what the prospects would be... what policies would be (?) after the war.
Too much noise.
American with
External Affairs
. Also a member of the (?)
United States
and also take the time (?) turned out to be not much use but uh (?) cooperation and
so on.
AS
And your capacity on the American relationship um, were you aware of the letters passing
back and forth between
Canada
and the United States on the issue of the repatriation of Japanese minorities after
the war?
HK
No, because after the war I was almost (mumbles) in 22.
AS
Yeah.
HK
Oh... (?) I suppose (?) last minute.
HK
Well, it may not have been
too noisy
responsibilities and (?).
AS
Hm.
Missing audio. 00:34:29.863
HK
Quite strong (?) in mind and that for uh political reasons some (?).
AS
00:35:04.436
Um, some of his memos definitely looked at it from a political aspect. That was the
other thing I was wondering about. I understood (?)
Mackenzie King
was
Pickersgill
. That, uh, when one wanted to present to Mackenzie King, one did so with extreme
caution.
00:35:04.436
AS
One told Mackenzie King that he was right, then slipped the button at the end. Um,
I was wondering whether and I noticed it in
Norman Robertson
’s memos to him that he generally seems to take the hard political line. Um, I think
because Mackenzie King was expecting political analysis of certain things but he does
slip (?) in. I was wondering if you could comment on what Norman Robertson’s position
was on this business.
Short pause.
HK
I’m not sure if it would be fair to express my opinion now because I haven’t thought
about it for so long. But um he started off with the typical, he was not the kind
of person who would be.... greatly concerned about the possibility of some injustice
(?). He looked at things, you know actually, things (?) I don’t think (?) worried
very much
And (?) attitude towards the Japanese (?) much more (?) attacks on the Japanese. But
who knows
mumbles
. It was also of course very close to (?) Consulate (?) discussion (?).
Mumbles.
AS
Mhm.
Missing audio. 00:37:24:082
HK
(?) Japanese problems
mumbles
.
Missing audio. 00:37:39.478
AS
Did you know
General Alexander
or did you just know him through names, et cetera?
HK
No, I can’t remember now whether (?) but I probably did but (?).
AS
He’s a very cloudy figure I would like to know more about.
HK
Mumbles.
AS
His opinions are so diametrical, so opposite to
General Pope
’s. And I know they were used by
Ian Mackenzie
to convince
. To the military (?). I get the impression-
HK
Have you read the book about the Canadian-American Military cooperation, the history
of
mumbles
.
AS
I-
HK
It’s by a fellow named (?).
AS
No-
HK
Mumbles.
AS
No I haven’t.
HK
I don’t remember
mumbles
.
AS
Oh I, yeah. Doubt if there is on this issue-
Missing audio. 00:38:55.061
HK
Made from uh
Tokyo
(?) out there
mumbles
. I wish with all my heart that I (?) as much as my secretary and take that job. (?)
that I could think of.
AS
Yeah, uh-
HK
Well he (?).
AS
Pickersgill
said he took the job because he was told by everybody it was a six month job. Nobody
could stand and
King
couldn’t stand anyone for more than six months.
HK
Sounds familiar.
AS
And Pickersgill lasted 12 years.
HK
Well (?) himself
mumbles
.
AS
He was very, very blunt when I was talking to him about this. He called it political
decisions, talked to me as a political decision. Um-
HK
Mumbles.
AS
00:40:17.576
I’m assuming-
Missing audio. 00:40:17.576
Metadata
Download Original XML (56K)
Download Standalone XML (60K)
Title
Hugh Keenleyside, interviewed by Ann Sunhara, 23 November 1977
Abstract
Hugh Keenleyside
describes the Board of Review’s investigation on the illegal entry of Japanese
Canadians in 1937. He also gives insights regarding the Department of Labour, External
Affairs, RCMP, and Department of Defence. He gives insights into
Ian Mackenzie
and his association with the White Canada Association, the Pope’s stance,
and
Mackenzie King
’s stance.
Ann
and
Hugh
discuss the similarities between the Canadian and American internment policies.
Hugh
then describes
Mackenzie King
’s attitude towards
A.W. Neil
and
Tom Reid
, and relief of
Angus McInnis
’s attitude against harsh measures. He then states his impression of whether
there were any alternatives to Internment.
Hugh
expresses that though the view of the Co-operative Commonwealth Foundation
(CCF) party was strong in
BC
they were not equally as strong federally.
Hugh
mentions his post-war occupation and his opinion of
Norman Robertson
and
Pickersgill
. (This oral history is from the
NNMCC
's Sunahara Collection. Accession No. 2018.16.1.70.7)
Credits
Interviewer: Ann Sunhara
Interviewee: Hugh Keenleyside
Transcriber: Sakura Taji
Audio Checker: Sakura Taji
XML Encoder: Sakura Taji
Publication Information: See Terms of Use for publication and licensing information.
Setting:
Victoria, B.C., Canada
Terminology
Readers of these historical materials will encounter derogatory references to Japanese
Canadians and euphemisms used to obscure the intent and impacts of the internment
and dispossession. While these are important realities of the history, the Landscapes
of Injustice Research Collective urges users to carefully consider their own terminological
choices in writing and speaking about this topic today as we confront past injustice.
See our statement on terminology, and related sources here.