1950-05-03

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria).


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: On Monday evening last the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked me a question, which is reported at page 2054 of Hansard, in reference to a report which had appeared in one of the Ottawa newspapers of that date, to the effect that a provision for compulsory blood tests for persons suspected of driving while drunk is being considered for inclusion in the Criminal Code. He wanted to know whether that report was correct. The newspaper report states that federal authorities now feel that the science of blood testing to establish alcohol content and relating the information to the driving capacity of a car operator has reached the point where it could be used in connection with prosecutions.
The source of this news report is not disclosed, but I should like to state emphatically that there is not the slightest foundation in fact for it. Neither the Department of Justice nor the Criminal Code revision commission has under consideration a proposal to amend the Criminal Code to compel persons accused of drunken driving to submit to the taking of a blood test.
Some time previously another newspaper contained a report that I had addressed communications to the attorneys general of the provinces proposing changes to be made in the law respecting drunken driving. I had not written any such letters, nor had I under consideration any proposal to do so. I concluded that this previous news report had some connection with the fact that the Criminal Code revision commission, which was sitting at Ottawa at the time, had given a direction to its secretary to submit two questions to the deputy attorney general of each province, asking first, whether, as a result of experience in enforcing section 285 of the
Criminal Code, they would favour retaining the provision of the law that calls for a minimum sentence of imprisonment on conviction of drunken driving, and, second, what compulsory period of suspension of the driver's licence they would favour as a result of their experience.
At the present time these are the only matters relating to the drunken driving provisions of the Criminal Code that are under consideration.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: May I refer to the fact that, according to a press report, the attorney general of British Columbia, Gordon S. Wismer, announced on April 29 that amendments are being drafted to the Criminal Code to stop the many acquittals the courts have been forced to render.
The report goes on to say:
He said the question was discussed with F. P. Varcoe, deputy minister of justice. Blood tests, balloon tests and other examinations for drunkenness were being investigated. Also being considered was placing the onus on the person suspected of drunken driving.
Mr. Wismer said:
And I expect a letter any day now asking my opinions on contemplated code changes.
Mr. Wismer apparently thinks it was under examination.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Since my hon. friend has read that report, and notwithstanding its contents, I think I should again assert that the communication which I have given to the house is quite correct. I think in fairness to Mr. Varcoe I should say that he and I conferred in its preparation.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table copy of order in council P.C. 2044, of April 27, 1950, authorizing the appointment of T. H. Cooper, of Montreal, representing the railway companies, and A. J. Kelly, of Ottawa, representing the railway brotherhoods, as members of the unemployment insurance advisory committee, in accordance with the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act providing for two additional members of the committee.

Questions



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from His Excellency the Governor General, signed by his own hand, reading as follows:
Government House, Ottawa May 2, 1950
Members of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the address that you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament. I thank you sincerely for this address.
Alexander of Tunis AERONAUTICS ACT



AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWER OF MINISTER TO MAKE REGULATIONS, ETC.

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 153 (from the Senate) to amend the Aeronautics Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Lillian Soper Pearce Smith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Antoinette Carriere Lepine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Marjorie Blythe Shore Marriott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Norman Harold Lucas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Blanche Irene Aurore Schryer Batryn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Leah Judith Godfrey Green.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Phyllis Martin Payne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Geraldine Estelle Leduc Brunet.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Green:: 1.	What is the aggregate amount paid, and to be paid, to Allan & Viner Construction Company, Limited, under contract for alterations in and additions and improvements to what is known as the Begg building in Vancouver?
2.	Has this firm made claim for payment of any extras over and above such contract price?
3.	If so, what is the amount so claimed?
4.	How much has been and will be paid on such claim?
[Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle) .1


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	$1,399,022.89.
2.	No.
3 and 4. Answered by No. 2.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: What have been the earnings and expenses of the Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland, during the year ending March 31, 1950, for (a) passengers:	(b) freight; (c) Newfoundland dock
yard; (d) Newfoundland hotel?


Lionel Chevrier: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
Operating revenues of the Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland, including rail, express and steamers, during the year ending March 31, 1950:
Passenger, $1,524,946; freight, $4,734,075; dockyard, $1,014,316; all other, $1,497,126; total: $8,770,463.
Operating expenses of the Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland, including rail, express and steamers, during the year ending March 31, 1950:
Dockyard (includes maintenance of facilities used for railway purposes), $1,088,881; all other (separation of expenses between freight and passenger is not maintained), $11,098,701; total, $12,187,582.
Note: The Newfoundland hotel was not taken over until October 1, 1949, and the results of operation from that date to March 31, 1950, are not yet available.



CONSUMPTION AND SALES OF FISH

Mr. Isnor:: 1.	What has been the yearly consumption of fish in Canada, per person, for the years 1935, 1940, 1945, 1947, 1948, 1949?
2.	What action has been taken in the past five years by the Department of Fisheries to increase the consumption of fish?
3.	What plans are there for the immediate future to enlarge sales in (a) domestic markets; (b) foreign markets?


Mr. MacNaughi:: 1.	Edible weight
pounds
Year	per capita
1935	 *
1940	  9-3
1945	  9-9
1947	  H-5
1948		 12-2
1949		 +
*No figures available.
tFigures not yet available.

2.	Establishment of an experimental kitchen for the testing of fish products and the creation of new recipes.
Expansion of department's home economist service.
Exhibits emphasizing value of fish as food at national and regional exhibitions, with distribution of pamphlets and fish cookbooks.
Retail market studies and furnishing of basic facts ascertained therefrom to industry.
Publication of trade news monthly, which includes a review of market position and outlook.
Publication, periodically, of market bulletins giving comprehensive review of markets and outlook.
Advertising to limited extent in fisheries trade periodicals in special editions of magazines and papers in Canada and in foreign publications.
Expansion of department's information, service, particularly along lines of consumer interest.
Development through fisheries research board of specially designed refrigerator car for fish transportation.
Continued research towards improving quality of products to be marketed.
3.	(a) Three new branches of the department are being established: (1) Fish inspection branch to bring into effect quality inspection, as envisaged by the Fish Inspection Act, 1949, 13 Geo. VI, chapter 23; (2) technical services branch, which will, amongst other things provide advice and assistance to wholesale and retail fish trade in the improvement of individual operations. Particular effort will be made to encourage the railway companies to make operational tests of the new refrigerator car and to have the fishing industry and manufacturers of refrigeration equipment help finance the extended use of low cost freezing units; (3) consumer service branch, with the object of enlarging and improving the work of home economists in demonstration and lecturing work, in fish cooking, to women's groups and schools; making particular effort to increase the use of fish in hotels, restaurants and institutions; expanding the use of new cookbooks, pamphlets, instructional films and exhibits to help consumers to know how to buy, what to buy and how to cook and serve fish.
3.	(b) With regard to export markets, fullest consideration will be given to the fish trade in co-operation with the Department of Trade and Commerce in the formation of any general policies that look forward to the opening of European, commonwealth and West Indies markets, or to reduction in United States tariffs.
Questions



HEALTH GRANTS


Mr. Viau:: In respect of what research projects and in what amounts has approval been given for financial assistance to Manitoba by the federal government under the national health grants program since the program started in 1948?


Mr. Marlin:: Under the public health research grant:
1.	Study of the physical environment of small schools $ 2,111.50
2.	Study of milk processing
methods	 3,500.00
3.	Study of rural septic tank
operations	 1,500.00
4.	Study of nitrates in ground
waters	 1,200.00
Under the mental health grant:
1.	Survey of case histories of all admissions to the Brandon mental hospital for the purpose of evaluating the
various forms of treatment	3,380.00
2.	Investigation at the Brandon mental hospital of the correlation between cholesterol metabolism and the causation of various
forms of mental disease..	534.00
Under the general public health grant:
1.	Investigation into effectiveness of treatment with ACTH and cortisone	 9,500.00



$21,725.50 MOTOR VEHICLES-IMPORTS FROM CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	Have any automobiles, trucks or other motor vehicles recently been imported into Canada from Czechoslovakia?
2.	If so, by whom, and for what purpose, and what was the import value for duty purposes, imposed on the said motor vehicles?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Imports from Czechoslovakia:
Item	Number Value
Automobiles
Calendar year 1949	
56	$52,150January and February, 1950	51	35,413
Motorcycles
Calendar year 1949	
1,100	228,947January and February, 1950	33	14,3642.	Names of importers not available.
Questions



PENSION APPEAL BOARD

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	How many cases, in each district, were heard during the years 1948 and 1949, before the appeal board of the Canadian pension commission?
2.	In how many of these cases were the decisions of the commission reversed or modified?


Mr. Mulch:: 1 and 2. Statement of appeal board cases heard during calendar years 1948 and 1949, and showing number granted and not granted:
Year 1948
Not
Heard granted Granted
Nova Scotia ...	.... 34	16	18Prince Edward Island 	
12	9	3New Brunswick	
133	76	57Quebec 	.... 252	149	103Ontario 	
597	315	282Manitoba 	
152	80	72Saskatchewan ..	. . .. 64	33	31Alberta 	
98	40	58British Columbia	... 215	125	90Total	....1557	843	714Year 1949 Not Heard granted	GrantedNewfoundland ..	-	-	-Nova Scotia .. .	. . . . 72	32	40.Prince Edward Island 	. . .. 16	6	10New Brunswick	
69	46	23Quebec 	
366	221	145Ontario 	
748	403	345Manitoba 	
169	86	83Saskatchewan . .	
102	56	46Alberta 	
102	41	61British Columbia	... 247	135	112-	-	-Total 	....1891	1026	865



CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What was the total number of casualties, including killed, wounded and missing, in the Canadian merchant navy during world war II?
2.	What was the total number and tonnage of Canadian merchant ships sunk, during world war II?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	1,161.
2.	Sixty-eight vessels of 330,254 gross tons registry.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	How many days during 1948, 1949, did H.M.C.S. Magnificent spend at sea?
2.	How many days during 1948, 1949, did H.M.C.S. Ontario spend at sea?
3.	How many days did each destroyer of the Royal Canadian Navy spend at sea, during 1948, 1949?
4.	How many days did each frigate of the Royal Canadian Navy spend at sea, during 1948, 1949?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1948 1949
1.	H.M.C.S.	Magnificent	
59	942.	H.M.C.S.	Ontario	
118	1143.	H.M.C.S.	Athabaskan	
81	121H.M.C.S.	Cayuga	
100	24H.M..C.S.	Crescent	
131	136H.M.C.S.	Haida	
127	156H.M.C.S.	Iroquois	
-	34H.M.C.S.	Micmac	
-	7H.M.C.S.	Nootka	
144	1024.	H.M.C.S.	St. Stephen	
187	152H.M.C.S.	Swansea	
119	144H.M.C.S.	Antigonish	
120	158H.M.C.S.	Beacon Hill	
-	45



WAR CRAVES IN OVERSEAS CEMETERIES

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	How are the graves of Canadian soldiers, who fell in world war II, marked in overseas cemeteries?
2.	Do the inscriptions on the crosses or headstones contain the name of the soldier who fell, his corps or his regiment, if he was in the corps of infantry?
3.	Are records kept in each cemetery so that a visitor can readily find the grave of an individual soldier, or those of members of any particular regiment?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Originally by temporary crosses. Replacement of these temporary crosses by the erection of permanent headstones is now and has been in progress for some time.
2.	The temporary crosses bore the name, regiment, and date of death, of the soldier.
The permanent headstones show:-
(a)	The Canadian maple leaf within an incised circle.
(b)	Regimental particulars, i.e., number, rank and name.
(c)	Decorations, if any.
(d)	The official Canadian designation of the corps of the deceased. ,
(e)	The date of death and, where possible, the age at time of death.
Infantry regiments are grouped together under Canadian Infantry Corps which is shown on the headstones.
3.	Yes.

Questions



IMPORTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES, 1946-49

Mr. While (Middlesex East):: 1.	What is the number of British-made cars imported by Canada in the following years, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949?
2.	What is the retailing value in Canada of imported British-made cars for the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949?
3.	What is the number of foreign-made cars, exclusive of British and United States, imported by Canada in the following years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949?
4.	What is the retailing value in Canada of those cars, valued by years?
5.	What is the total number of foreign-made cars, exclusive of the United States, imported by Canada in 1939, and retailing value of those cars?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.
Year
1946		
1947		
1948		
1949		
2.	No information
3.
1946		
1947		
1948		
1949		
4.	No information.
5.
1939	 656
(Retail value not known)



ILE A LA CROSSE, SASK., POST OFFICE

Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at He a la Crosse, Saskatchewan?
2.	Who is the owner of the property in which the post office at lie a la Crosse is situated?
3.	Is any other business carried on from this property?
4.	If so, what kind of business is it, and by whom
is it carried on?	,
5.	Does the postmaster work full time in the post office?
6.	If not, how is he otherwise employed?
7.	When was the postmaster appointed?
8.	Have there been any alleged irregularities at this post office since January 1, 1948?
9.	If so. what was the nature of the alleged irregularities?
10.	Have they been investigated, and if so, by whom?
11.	What has been the result of any investigation?


Mr. Lapointe:: 1.	Mrs. Constance Gertrude Marion is in temporary charge pending the selection of a permanent postmaster.
2.	L. M. Marion.
3.	Yes.
4.	General store conducted by L. M. Marion.
5.	No.
6.	No definite information.
7.	25th November, 1949 (temporary appointment).
8.	Yes.
9.	There was a shortage of approximately $2,000 in accounts in November, 1949.
10.	Yes, by field officers of the Post Office Department.
11.	The postmaster, Mr. A. Ahenakew, was relieved of office. A temporary postmaster was installed, as indicated above. Final action is awaiting result of further investigations, which have been retarded due to isolation of the district.



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


Mr. Caiherwood:: 1.	How many offices of the wartime prices and trade board were In operation in Canada when the war ended in 1945?
2.	How many such offices are operating in Canada at the present time and in what locations?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	The wartime prices and trade board had 124 regional and local offices operating in Canada when the war ended in 1945.
2.	The following 44 regional, district and branch offices are in operation in Canada at the present time:
Halifax, Saint John, Charlottetown, Sydney, Moncton, Montreal, Quebec, Jonquiere, Rimouski, Riviere du Loup, Drummondville, Granby, Joliette, Rouyn, Sherbrooke, Three Rivers, Valleyfield, Toronto, Ottawa, London, North Bay, Belleville, Brockville, Cornwall, Kingston, Barrie, Hamilton, Peterborough, St. Catharines, Brantford, Kitchener, Owen Sound, Windsor, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Timmins, Winnipeg, Brandon, Fort William, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Kamloops and Victoria.



EXPORTS AND IMPORTS, WHEAT AND OTHER COMMODITIES, 1949

Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	What quantities of wheat were exported from Canada to the United Kingdom in 1949?
2.	What quantities of flour were exported from Canada to the United Kingdom in 1949?
3.	What quantities of hides were imported into Canada from the Argentine in 1949, and what is the value of same?
4.	How many (a) dairy cattle: (b) beef cattle; (c) cattle under 400 pounds, were exported from Canada to the United States in 1949?
5.	How many in each of the above categories were shipped from Toronto?
6.	What quantities of apples were exported from Canada to the United Kingdom in 1949?
7.	What quantities of these were from (a) British Columbia; (b) Ontario; (c) Nova Scotia?
Passenger cars ...	583
...	1,933
. . .	14,177
...	31,231
...	7
...	83
...	511

Questions


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	139,281,181 bus.
2.	4,768,739 bbls.
3.	Cattle hides, 3,000 hides, $31,796; sheepskins, 201,987 skins, $322,272.
4.	(a) Dairy cattle, 200 lbs. to 700 lbs., 199;
dairy cattle, over 700 lbs., 46,845;
(b)	Beef cattle, 200 lbs. to 700 lbs.,
102,348; beef cattle, over 700 lbs.,
215,889.
(c)	Cattle, less than 200 lbs.t, 31,483.
tCattle 200 lbs to 400 lbs. included in dairy cattle or beef cattle above. Separate figures not available.
5.	Information not available.
6.	526,556 bbls.
7.	Information not available.



EXPORTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr. Noseworlhy:: 1.	How many automobiles and how many tractors were exported from Canada to sterling area countries in 1949?
2.	How were these paid for?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	Automobiles, freight, 10,982; automobiles, passenger, 14,851; tractors, 241.
2.	These were exports entering Canadian commercial trade and presumably were paid for in the normal commercial manner.



*BELL ISLAND, NFLD., IRON ORE

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Have discussions taken place between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and any person or persons relative to the sale of 300,000 tons of Bell island iron ore?
2.	If so, what is the result of such discussions?


Mr. Howe:: I can answer this question again orally. I have already answered it at least twice. However, for the third time:
The first discussion that took place in reference to the sale of 300,000 tons of Bell island iron ore took place in my office when the president of Dosco called to say that he was negotiating for such an order, and asking for certain help from the department, which was extended.
The second conversation took place about two hours later when Mr. Smallwood called me about the Bell island ore, and I told him of those negotiations. That ended any discussion on the subject from that day to this. I did exchange letters with Mr. Millard, head of the steel workers' union, with reference to the conversations.


Mr. Higgins:: Did you give Mr. Smallwood the assurance that the sale had been made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; I told him exactly what I had been told by Dosco. Perhaps I should not have passed on the information, but I did. I said that the sale was under negotiation.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.



NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Have steps been taken to appoint a fourth Judge to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland?
2.	If so, when will such appointment be made?
3.	How many district court judges are to be appointed in Newfoundland?
4.	When are such appointments to be made?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The Newfoundland legislature has not as yet enacted legislation creating any district court judgeship.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
(See also revised answer at page 2800.)



GANDER, NFLD., AIRPORT

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Have the restrictions against the building of private homes within a radius of five miles of Gander airport been removed?
2.	Is it proposed to reconstruct the runways at Gander airport?
3.	If so, when is it proposed to begin the work?
4.	Are there any restrictions against the landing of Boeing aircraft at Gander airport?
5.	If so, when will they be removed?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	No.
2.	The runways at Gander will be reconstructed as circumstances require and funds permit.
3.	It is hoped to do some work on runway reconstruction at Gander next year.
4.	There are no landing restrictions specific to any particular type of aircraft, but the airport' was closed to all aircraft with an operating weight in excess of 105,000 lbs. on April 19, 1950.
5.	These restrictions will be removed as soon as the area dries sufficiently to make their imposition unnecessary. It is estimated that this should be about May 15.



BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is the present status of the Bell Telephone Company's application for an increase in rates in Ontario and Quebec?
2.	Have any interim increases been granted?
3.	Are increases in telephone rates being sought anywhere else in Canada outside of Ontario and Quebec?
4.	If so, where, and what is the status of each such application?

Questions


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	The Bell Telephone Company's application for an increase in subscribers' rates in Ontario and Quebec is being heard by the board of transport commissioners.
2.	None by the board of transport commissioners.
3.	Yes. In British Columbia. (Subject to jurisdiction of board of transport commissioners).
4.	The application of the British Columbia Telephone Company for an increase in subscribers' rates was heard by the board of transport commissioners commencing in the early part of January, 1950, and judgment of the board therein was reserved and has not yet been delivered.



SILVER-LEAD ORE AND CONCENTRATES, YUKON TERRITORY

Mr. Green:: 1.	Will the government consider establishing a hydro plant at Miles canyon on Yukon river for the purpose of generating electricity and the erection and operation of a smelter at that point for the smelting of silver-lead ore and concentrates now being produced in Yukon?
2.	Is the government aware that at present all ore and concentrates produced in Yukon have to be transported to the coast of Alaska, and from there further long distances for smelter treatment, chiefly in the United States of America?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	Some consideration has been given to the establishment of a hydroelectric plant at Miles canyon for generating electricity for general purposes. The power requirements are now under consideration.
2.	Yes.
HALIBUT FISHING SEASON Mr. Green:
1.	Has the international fisheries commission requested that the halibut treaty be amended to give the commission power to regulate the halibut fisheries, for instance, by splitting the season?
2.	Has the United States government signified its willingness to amend the treaty?
3.	Have any recommendations been made by the Department of Fisheries to the governor in council that the treaty should be amended?
4.	If not, for what reason were recommendations withheld?
5.	Has the commission supplied the Department of Fisheries with data indicating that some 4,000,000 pounds more halibut could be taken annually if the treaty was so amended?
6.	Did the commission in 1949 hold open hearings at all principal fishing ports?
7.	Was the consensus of opinion in favour of extending the season?
8.	Has the United States government informed the commission that under the present treaty they have no power to split the season?


Mr. MacNaughi:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	The proposed amendments to the treaty were varied in kind, and among them were proposals which, if sanctioned, would involve the halibut commission directly in the regulation of the halibut fishery for economic and marketing purposes as well as for conservation. This would mean a significant change in the original terms of reference to the commission. Strong differences of opinion have been expressed by different sections of the Canadian industry on the desirability of this extension of power to an international commission. Discussions with the fishing industry are still being held with a view to achieving some reconciliation of these views.
5.	No data have been supplied, but in our estimates this year we are asking for additional funds to provide our share in increasing the commission's scientific investigations into this question.
6.	Yes.
7.	Yes, but not under the formula of the split season as proposed by certain sections of the fishing fleets.
8.	Yes.



RAILWAY CONNECTION BETWEEN CANADA AND ALASKA

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has an agreement been reached between Canada and the United States for the conducting of a location survey for a railway connection between a Canadian railway point and Alaska?
2.	If so, what are the terms of such agreement, and does the territory to be surveyed include the Peace river block and the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains?
3.	If no agreement has yet been reached, what is the status of negotiations between Canada and the United States with respect to this matter?


Mr. Pearson:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	There have been no negotiations.



DOMINION FIRE COMMISSIONER

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Who is the dominion fire commissioner?
2.	If the person filling this position at the present time is not permanently appointed thereto, how long is it since there was a permanent, full-time dominion fire commissioner?
3.	When will a permanent, full-time appointment to this post be made?
4.	What is the total staff of the dominion fire prevention branch?

Orders for Returns


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	The position of dominion fire commissioner is now vacant, but the duties of the position have been performed, so far as possible, in an acting capacity, by Sergeant E. Scholfield, who is a member of the R.C.M.P.
2.	Sergeant E. Scholfield is not permanently appointed to the position of dominion fire commissioner, which was rendered vacant by the death of the former permanent full-time incumbent, Mr. W. L. Clairmont, on April 24, 1949.
3.	The civil service commission has conducted a competition for filling the position, and an appointment is expected to be made shortly.
4.	The total number of positions in the fire prevention branch of the department of insurance is two.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
* judges' salaries
["For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged during the past ten years between the dominion government, any minister, department, branch or official thereof, and any person or persons, together with inspector's reports and contracts, in connection with any proposed P.F.R.A. scheme for damming the Beauvais lake near Pincher Creek, Alberta, at any point."]
Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, having discussed this question with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I think that I should reply orally as follows:
We have had a number of representations made to us by individual judges, and by one group of judges, requesting salary increases or changes in pension provisions. Several of the individual judges writing to me have marked their letters "confidential", and some are not so marked. One of the most carefully considered requests for salary increases has come from the county and district court judges of Ontario, who certainly did not mark their material confidential; and, after discussing this matter with the hon. gentleman who asked the question, it was thought that we should not put in the letters from the individual judges, but that I should table a copy of the correspondence which has passed between the committee representing the county and district court judges of Ontario and myself.
This correspondence is lengthy, so I shall treat the question as an order for a return and table the return at once.
Return tabled.



Mr. Fraser:: 1.	How many people are employed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	Of these, how many are (a) male temporary employees; (bj female temporary employees; (c) male permanent civil servants; (d) female permanent civil servants?
3.	How many employees receive more than $3,500 per year?
4.	What are their names, duties, home office, salaries and travelling expenses for 1949?
5.	How many offices are operated by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
6.	Where are they located?
7.	Does the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation pay the rent and upkeep on all these
offices?
8.	If not, who does pay it?
9.	What is the average cost of collecting rents of all Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation properties?


Mr. Prudham:: Return tabled.


PENICILLIN
Mr. Herridge:: 1.	Has a tariff been imposed on penicillin? If so, what is the rate of such tariff, and when was it first given effect?
2.	What was the value of penicillin imported into Canada for the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT PURCHASES OP OLEOMARGARINE
Mr. Knight:: 1.	Was any margarine purchased by any department of the government, between January 1, 1949, and April 25, 1950?
2.	If so (a) what were the departments making the purchases; (b) what amounts were purchased in each case?


NATIONAL PHYSICAL FITNESS ACT
Mr. Knight:: 1.	What provinces signed the agreements with the federal government under the terms of the National Physical Fitness Act, and for what periods have these agreements been made?
2.	What amounts of money have been paid to each of the provinces each year under the terms of the act, and what proportion of the total provincial expenditures on physical fitness and recreation programs do the federal grants make up?
3.	Has the amount of federal assistance available to each of the provinces been sufficient to accomplish the purposes of the act?
4.	What regulations have been made as provided for under section 14 of the act?


Mr. Knight:: 1.	What provision under the National Physical Fitness Act has been made for the training of volunteers, part-time, and full-time paid leaders for community fitness and recreation programs at the national, provincial and local levels?
2.	Have standards been developed for programs, personnel and facilities under the direction of the council during the past five years?

3.	What matters have been investigated as provided for under section 10 of the act?
4.	Are reports available concerning the findings of such investigations?
5.	What recommendations has the council made to the minister with regard to the promotion of [DOT] physical fitness, and what action has been taken on these recommendations?


PUBLIC SERVICE-TRAVELLING AND MOVING EXPENSES
Mr. Balcer:: What was the total amount of travelling and removal expenses paid by the federal treasury in (a) the year 1948; (b) the year 1949?


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Gordon Francis Higgins: How many persons are employed in the federal services in Newfoundland, from (a) the province of Newfoundland; (b) other provinces?


FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ON WESTERN FEED GRAINS
Mr. Ross (Souris):: 1.	Is freight assistance on western feed grains granted in Canada beyond Fort William, Ontario, or Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	If so, where to?
3.	Are milling companies or feed companies permitted freight assistance or drawback on freight on oats or coarse grains purchased or handled by them?
4.	If so, what companies during 1948 and 1949 obtained freight assistance or drawback on coarse grains, and what amounts?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Knowles:: For a return showing the names and addresses of all persons, associations or companies in Canada denied the use of the mails at the present time, and showing also the reason and the authority for such denial in each case.
For a return showing the names and addresses of all companies or associations in Canada who are denied the use of the mails at the present time by virtue of any order or decision made since December 1, 1949, and showing also the reason and the authority for such denial in each case.
May I point out that these two motions, which on today's order paper are numbered 1 and 5, are similar. I have made certain changes in the first one, and I should like to ask that it be dropped in favour of the second. While I am on my feet I might add that the Acting Postmaster General has asked me to allow the second one to stand for today.


NAKUSP-EDGEWOOD, B. C., MAIL SERVICE
Mr. Herridge:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, contracts, and other documents exchanged between the Post Office Department, its officials, and any other parties in regard to the present mail contract governing delivery of mail between Nakusp and Edgewood.
Inquiries of the Ministry


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE
Mr. Hansell:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged during the past ten years between the dominion government, any minister, department, branch or official thereof, and any person or persons, together with inspector's reports and contracts, in connection with any proposed P.F.R.A. scheme for damming the Beauvais lake near Pincher Creek, Alberta, at any point.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposilion):: Mr. Speaker, on April 17 the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) directed a question to the Prime Minister in regard to any legislation not now indicated but which might be coming before the house this session. At that time the Prime Minister said he would consult his colleagues and be in a position to inform the house as to new legislation which might be expected. Can he now do so?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I immediately took the matter up with several departments. We spent some considerable time yesterday discussing the replies that had been received from departments. The discussion was not completed yesterday, but we hope to complete it tomorrow.



DOUKHOBORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Has the minister authorized the use of certain buildings at Patricia Bay airport for the accommodation of Doukhobor children and families? If so, how many Doukhobors are being sent there, and what arrangements have been made for their accommodation and the security of public buildings?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to the question is yes. The buildings at Patricia Bay airport are the property of the Royal Canadian Air Force, but the Department of Transport are the custodians. Recently representations were made to the department by officials of the department of health and welfare of the government of British Columbia indicating to us that they would require the buildings, for the purpose of housing some 300 to 350 children, and asking if we would place the

Inquiries of the Ministry buildings at their disposal. During the discussions it was indicated that all the requirements of the Department of Transport would be met, and furthermore that the provincial authorities would undertake to arrange for water, light and power as required, and that they would guarantee to return the buildings to us in as good shape as they are at the present time.
In view of that, the concurrence of the Department of National Defence was sought and obtained, and on that basis I authorized the officials of the department to grant a lease to the department of health and welfare of British Columbia. The lease is now in course of preparation. Meantime the buildings are available for those persons if they require them.


George Randolph Pearkes: What is the period of the
lease?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no definite time in the lease. No request has been made as to that, but I think it will be a lease at pleasure. The hospitals and adjoining buildings are sufficient for 150 or 200 people, but I understand the province wishes to move beds and the like to take care of these 350 people.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES TRANSFER AND REDUCTION OF STAFF AT WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What information can the minister give the house concerning transfers and layoffs, both current and pending, of T.C.A. personnel in Winnipeg?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I received notice of this question an hour or two before the house opened, and the information I am giving now is that obtained over the telephone from the head office of the Trans-Canada Air Lines.
Statements recently appearing in the Winnipeg press affecting Trans-Canada Air Lines require correction in order that both T.C.A. personnel and the citizens of Winnipeg may be under no misapprehension as to the company's actions and plans. T.C.A. has consistently stated that, other than the headquarters move in October, 1949, it did not contemplate any transfer of operating functions away from Winnipeg. T.C.A. has not transferred away from Winnipeg any such function, nor does it contemplate doing so.
Staff layoffs have taken place in recent weeks, and further layoffs will take place
[Mr. Chevrier.l
when circumstances justify that action as
t.C.A., as with any other efficient organization, cannot retain personnel for which it can foresee no essential work. To refrain from 'layoffs under these circumstances would be unfair to the employee concerned, and, in the case of a publicly-owned company, unfair to the taxpayer.
The facts regarding the recent and immediately contemplated reduction in the staffs of various units in the company are as follows:
The strength of the engineering department has been reduced by 55 by means of the transfer of 16 employees to other departments within the company, the layoff at Montreal of 21 employees, and the layoff at Winnipeg of 18 employees. The development shop personnel will, by June 15, have been reduced by 19, 17 of whom will have been transferred back to the various shops from which they were originally drawn, and two of whom will be laid off. The strength of the metal shop has been reduced by seven employees hired on a temporary basis for a specific job. Ten other employees of the metal shop will suffer enforced layoffs due to the transfers from the development shop of more senior people.
The company contemplates the adoption of what is known as progressive major overhaul work. This practice is essential, since the company's twenty North Star aircraft all went into service within a period of two months. Therefore the amount of flying time on each aircraft in the group is about the same. If major overhaul work was undertaken only at the required interval of perhaps 10,000 hours of flying, all aircraft of the North Star fleet would reach this stage within a very few months of one another. This would impose an impossibly large work load at some time in the future, and would mean that the company would be temporarily deprived of the use of several of these aircraft simultaneously, to the detriment of its services. The adoption of this practice * deprives Winnipeg of no work of this type which it has had, since no North Star aircraft has as yet attained the flying time requiring major overhaul.
Progressive major overhaul, as a practice, was not applied to the DC-3 aircraft, since it was expected that these would have been replaced by new aircraft before they had reached the number of hours requiring major overhaul. The rapid expansion of the company's services, however, and the resulting accumulation of service hours, made it necessary to commence a program of major overhauls of the DC-3 aircraft late last year, and this program will be completed this year. It

is not expected that the DC-3's will reach a second major overhaul period-which would not occur inside of three or four years- while still in T.C.A.'s service, and therefore progressive major overhaul, if applied to this aircraft as a policy, would represent an unjustified expense.
The engineering and development departments were considerably expanded for the type of work always involved in the placing in service of any new aeroplane. These staffs were established to carry out the DC-3 development program and were retained until similar work was completed on the North Star. This task on the larger aircraft is now completed.



QUESTION AS TO REPORT OF RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or the chairman of the special committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, whether the final report of that committee will be presented soon so that the matter just referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) may be discussed in the house?


Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Halion):: The report is being drafted and will be presented in due course. I expect it will be presented within the next week or two.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Too late.



INDIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister tell the house the conditions under which an Indian agent refused to allow an Indian to visit his seriously sick daughter at Hearst?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that question is prompted by an article which appeared in the press last evening. I called for a report at once, and have received an interim report which indicates that the newspaper article is far from complete. I would prefer to wait until I receive the final report and then give it to my hon. friend.
Inquiries of the Ministry PACIFIC CONFERENCE



QUESTION AS TO CONSIDERATION OF A PACIFIC PACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, having to do with the departure of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) to attend the Pacific conference. I know the house will wish him well on his trip to represent Canada at that meeting. Within the last two days the press has stated that the governments of Australia and New Zealand intend to press at that conference for a Pacific pact, and will ask for the support of North America. What stand will the minister take at that conference on behalf of the people of Canada in reference to including Canada in the Pacific pact?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The conference to which my hon. friend has referred will open in Sydney on May 15, and, as has been stated, the Minister of Fisheries will represent the government at that conference. It is a meeting of the commonwealth consultative committee recommended by the commonwealth conference held at Colombo last January. This conference will discuss recommendations for economic and technical help through the commonwealth organization to the countries of southeast Asia. It is not expected by the Canadian government that political questions of the kind indicated by my hon. friend will be discussed.


John George Diefenbaker: Indicated by the Prime Minister of New Zealand.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The matter may be brought up by some member of the conference, and if so, the Canadian delegate will report that fact back to his government. As we did not expect that this subject would be a matter of discussion, no decision has been taken by the government as to what the Canadian delegate would do if it is brought up.

The house resumed from Tuesday, May 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.



COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA

Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anyone can take part in a debate of this kind without a strong sense not only of the importance but of the great difficulty of the subject. It is so utterly repugnant to us to feel, as we have to feel,

Communist Activities in Canada that there are fellow citizens, people who have enjoyed the immunities and amenities of our life, who are prepared as agents of a foreign power to try to destroy the civilization under which they have lived. It is natural, then, that on the one hand we may fall into the danger of impatiently feeling that we must take steps which will be sure to be vigorous enough to meet the situation, and that on the other hand we are haunted by the feeling that at our peril do we do anything which lessens or circumscribes the civil liberties which after all are the very cornerstone of our life.
It is in the face of these difficulties that we have to debate this question. I remember very well an anti-nazi German, who had become a Canadian citizen, coming to me in 1940, just after the war really began, full of alarm as to what might be done by way of sabotage. I remember well the words he used. He said: "You must regard nothing as fantastic". In other words he meant that the kind of thing which would be done might easily outrun anything we might imagine as possible. I think we owe a great debt to the police and others that his fears were not realized; but as we consider the present peril I think we are driven to the belief that in Russia we have a potential enemy even harder to grasp in our imagination, and that therefore we must deal with these things seriously and try not merely to jog along with the pleasant feeling that after all there are not very many people who will do these things. Surely we have learned in the last few years what can be done by a few determined men under direction.
Many hon. members have no doubt read a book which appeared some years ago entitled "It Can't Happen Here". It was an allegory describing fascism coming to the United States. I think everyone who read it had the feeling not that it could not happen here, but that it could happen anywhere if there was a let-down in the vigilance which we have to show.
I come now to the amendment moved yesterday by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I wish to recall to your mind, Mr. Speaker, for a moment the circumstances under which he introduced it. He recalled a letter written a year ago by him to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He recalled the statement of the Prime Minister at that time, that the subject was under consideration by the Department of Justice, and that in due course we would be informed as to the result of the discussion. He recalled further that more than a year has passed and as yet no indication has been given by the government concerning the course it proposes to follow.


I might also point out that later in the debate reference was made to a statement made in the summer of 1949 by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). In a Canadian Press dispatch, referred to in the debate, there was the following:
He told the Montreal Rotary Club the domestic threat of communism must be met "by strengthening, if necessary, our Criminal Code against actions which threaten the security of the state."
Therefore when the leader of the opposition raised the question yesterday he was bringing up something which had been under discussion with the government, and which there was every reason to consider was being seriously pondered by the government.
I think the debate has been a useful one. I will not complain too much that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs rather disregarded the terms of the amendment and set up straw men which they then had great pleasure in knocking down, but which, of course, were not men whom we had set up to be knocked down at all. For instance, the Prime Minister explained that he thought it was wise that labour had gone ahead in dealing with their own communist situation, but of course that is a matter with which we would all agree. The leader of the opposition would agree with that just as much as the leader of the government. We made no suggestion of a purge, and if any suggestion of the kind emanates from government speakers on the other side, that of course is quite irrelevant. It was not a purge we were talking about; it was an amendment of the law.
I should like to point out that the amendment was cast in broad terms, and that it was quite open to the officials of the Department of Justice to take whatever appropriate remedies the situation required. I want to emphasize again what was emphasized yesterday, namely, that what we are talking about is communist activities.
One other thing I should like to point out is that there was a good deal of suggestion that laws were unnecessary, that all we needed to do was to trust to our own good sense. Nevertheless the Prime Minister, as reported at page 2088 of Hansard, speaking of the spy trial said:
I endured many a slap on the wrist in this house for the methods that were adopted to handle the situation.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that one of the reasons why there were slaps on the wrist at that time was that things were done which some people in the house at any rate thought were not consistent with parliamentary practice or with the gradually developed processes of constitutional government. Some members thought we had to go back prior to

Runny mede to find a precedent for it. I am not overlooking the fact that it was mostly a question of procedure and perhaps not purely a question of law, but I suggest most earnestly that the Prime Minister's own words indicate this is not an open-and-shut matter, that it is one which should be considered carefully by all of us and not in any party fashion.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs also gave us some good advice. He made reference to keeping our heads, and gave us a couple of pages of advice about not indulging in witch-hunts such as they have had in the United States. I think we shall be able to follow the advice he gave us with quite considerable success, because nothing was further from our thoughts than either to lose our heads or to start witchhunts, such as they have had in the United States. What he said about that was very true, if irrelevant.
He then made a statement which interested me greatly. In answer to a question as to what had been done about this matter at Colombo, he said that the point had been made there that communism was not as great a menace as Soviet imperialism, of which communism is the instrument. I found that interesting, but I also thought it was a little above my head. I had the feeling that that might be the kind of dialectics in which senior diplomats can indulge, but to ordinary people it does not mean very much. Assuming that communism did us grievous injury, I should think it would be very cold comfort if somebody said: Oh, don't worry; it is not communism that is the enemy; it is Soviet imperialism that is doing all this. I do not believe that would comfort us very much. Indeed I am inclined to think that the ordinary man would say it was the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee.
It remained for one or two of our C.C.F. friends, notably the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), to get on to the old question of freedom of speech. He took from his quiver that well-worn arrow and dispatched it again. I am sorry he is not here, because I really would remonstrate with him, that a man whose name begins with "Mac", a man who was brought up on the shorter catechism, should deal in such irrelevancies. I hope the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F., will tell him that I venture to suggest his reference to freedom of speech was no more relevant than if he had told us he was against bigamy. It had nothing to do with this debate. We are just as much in favour of freedom of speech as he or anyone else.
Now I come to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). In a way
Communist Activities in Canada I liked very much what he said, except that it seemed to me it was a little unrealistic. He said we ought to rely on our spiritual strength and not fear communism, if I understood him correctly. I will agree with him that all the laws we can make will not be of any value unless we have spiritual strength on which to rely. I propose to try to say a word about that myself. But I also suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that we rely a good deal on the good sense of our people not to indulge too widely in the practice of murder; nevertheless we have laws about it, and we take considerable pains to see that people are not encouraged in that direction. I suggest to the hon. member that he went a good deal too far when he suggested that we need not be concerned about laws but should rely merely on our own strong moral character.
Let us look for a moment now at the resolution. I have stressed already that it deals with activities. We are not indulging in any process of psychoanalysis. We are not going to try to analyse people and see if they have dangerous thoughts. We are not going to make thought a crime. What we are trying to do is to make certain that activities, overt acts, are sufficiently guarded against by our legislation. Going back to what I said a moment or two ago about labour, I would say the purpose of this legislation, if it is strengthened, would be to make it easier for labour to deal with its own situation, not to step in or try to interfere, but to create a climate which would be more favourable to labour looking after its own problems.
I come back for a moment to the C.C.F. and the use of the word "similar". Apparently that was a most alarming proposition to them. I hope they were reassured last night when the leader of the opposition reminded them that to some extent at least this was taken from an amendment they themselves had moved, and that in fact by the word "similar" was meant "fascist." I take it that, with the word "fascist" interpolated, the great alarm which was apparent would to some extent disappear; at any rate I would hope so. In passing, just as a matter of interest concerning our own party, I would remind the house that this resolution comes within the four corners of one we passed at our convention a year ago last autumn. If there are any who wish to see the light, I have copies of those resolutions here, and can give them to any who would like to read them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for a moment I should like to turn away from the domestic aspect of this problem and ask that we consider the problem very earnestly in its broader aspect,

Communist Activities in Canada because no one who is even semi compos mentis doubts that today we live in a very dangerous world. Years ago I was a practising member of the civil liberties association in Toronto. That is regarded by some of my hon. friends, I must admit, as a very strange organization; nevertheless I think it did no harm and considerable good. But we had some very strange members. Whenever an organization of that kind, good, bad or indifferent, is set up, the communists crowd in. I remember that I had a friend, quite a respectable businessman, come to me and say, "Don't you know there are communists in that organization?" I said, "Yes, I do know; they keep us there until twelve o'clock every night." One of the things about the communists is that apparently they have an unlimited amount of time to spend at meetings. My friend replied, "What are you going to do about it?" I said, "The only thing we can do is get you and a lot of other sensible people to come in and vote them down," but he thought that was a silly idea and never did come.
Sometimes we had a great deal of trouble with those people. At that time I became aware of something that has perplexed and puzzled me ever since; that is, that there are people whom you could hardly deny are agreeable people in almost every aspect of their lives-intelligent people, humane people, socially minded people-who still go after this crazy thing. I was rather naive about it for a long time, I am afraid. I could not understand how men with civilized minds and sympathetic hearts could ever be attracted to a brutal dictatorship. At one time I was inclined to think they were just abnormal, and we did not need to pay any attention to them. Now, however, I do not think that is good enough. As a matter of fact we cannot wash out intellectuals like that, because when we take for the long pull, twenty, thirty or forty years, we may as well recognize that the people we sometimes criticize and are impatient with, people who can speak and write and at any rate appear to think, do exercise great powers of leadership.
At one time I had thought rather naively that if you could just meet those people and have a frank discussion with them, they would admit it was all crazy. Of course I was wrong; and, as I say, I went on being perplexed. But my trouble was to some extent resolved by a book that appeared recently, which I commend to all hon. members, called "The God that Failed." It is a recantation by six people, I think high-minded individuals, who went off after this creed but found that they were pursuing false


ideals, and were courageous enough-and it takes some courage-.-to come out and expose the thing and give their reasons against it. I should like to read one or two brief extracts from the book; in fact I would prescribe a few pages of this book per day to anyone who is now thinking of following this belief. As a matter of fact, while it would be against my principles, I would be willing to became a dictator for the moment in order to force them to read this book. Perhaps I might have the support of the leader of the C.C.F. party for that purpose.


Mr. Coldwell:: I have read the book.


Mr. Knighi:: Would the hon. member tell us the name of the author?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There are six authors. The preface is written by a man who is pretty far to the left, of whom some hon. members may be critical. I am .referring to Richard Crossman, member of the British House of Commons. If anyone wishes to know the names of the six authors, perhaps I could give them later. They are well known, and include one Frenchman, one German, two Americans, and one Italian, perhaps the most interesting of all, whom I shall quote later on. I want to read one or two brief extracts, and I suggest that the considerations brought forward here are vital, and that we disregard .them at our peril.


An hon. Member:: What is the name of the book?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: "The God that Failed," and the name on the back is Crossman, who wrote the introduction. On page 6 of the introduction this question is asked:
How could these intellectuals accept the dogmatism of Stalinism? The answer is to be found scattered through the pages which follow. For the intellectual, material comforts are relatively unimportant; what he cares about is spiritual freedom.
Let us not forget that sometimes, not always, this is true. Then the writer goes on to speak of-
-the communist novice . . . wearied and worried by the privilege of freedom-getting relief by subjecting himself to the canon law of the Kremlin.


Major James William Coldwell: Is that Crossman speaking?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes; he says the communist novice finds a release from this worry by subjecting his soul to the canon law of the Kremlin. It sounds crazy; yet here are capable men, some of them very distinguished, who did it. Then there is this brief further quotation:
But it is clear that, as soon as the intellectual convert began to know more about conditions in Russia, his mood changed.

I shall have a little more to say about that later.


Mr. Stick:: Send that book to Dr. Endicott.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He may have seen it; and he may be incorrigible. I want to read a sentence or two further, because I think they illustrate the great mental gulf that exists between ourselves and these people. Here is an extract from that part of the book written by an Italian named Silone, who was in Moscow a great deal between 1921 and 1927:
What struck me most about the Russian communists, even in such really exceptional personalities as Lenin and Trotsky, was their utter incapacity to be fair in discussing opinions that conflicted with their own. The adversary, simply for daring to contradict, at once became a traitor, an opportunist, a hireling. An adversary in good faith is inconceivable to the Russian communists.
A little later he speaks of a conversation he had with a communist woman, who said to him:
If you happen to read in the papers that Lenin has had me arrested for stealing the silver spoons in the Kremlin, that simply means that I am not entirely in agreement with him about some little problem of agricultural or industrial policy.
Later he speaks of other things along the same line. I have outlined these things to you and brought these points before you briefly because I believe they are things that serious people should be thinking about. After all, we all face the fact that at the present time the western world is competing with the communist world, you may say, for the minds and hearts of hundreds and hundreds of millions of other people.
It is customary to say-and of course there is a great deal of truth in saying it-that what we must do is to make it clear that our economic organization is better. I do not belittle the importance of that suggestion at all. But that is not the whole story. The economic condition in Czechoslovakia could have been improved until it was an earthly paradise and it would not have affected what happened there two years ago. That happened not because the men engaged in it were in want. As a matter of fact, most of the leaders in this movement are not in want. It is not people who are in want who head up these things. It is people with dominating personalities, with this strange aberration which I have brought to your attention. I say, therefore, it seems to me that we are just on the fringe of the problem if we content ourselves with saying that all we have to do is to make it appear that we are more prosperous in the democracies than others are under the communists. We all believe that we are immensely more prosperous than the people are in Russia today. I do not think
Communist Activities in Canada anyone doubts that. But that has not been sufficient to affect the situation. We say, of course, that it is partly because they do not know; but it is much more than that. In the end we have to admit that,-I was going to say it is moral values, but it is a bit hard to use the word "moral" about a system that we detest and abominate so greatly, and so I change the wording a little and say it is nonmaterial values which are going to control this situation in the end. After all, what have you in Russia today? You have a small number-I suppose there are less than five million people in the communist party, as they call it-who, by their cohesion, fanaticism and something which approaches faith, are dominating well on to two hundred million other people. That is what we have. We cannot bring ourselves to call it a faith but we must at any rate concede that it is a tremendous motive power. As I said a moment ago, we are competing with this, and the competition raises all kinds of questions.
Some hon. members will have seen it reported a couple of days ago-I think it was in the press yesterday-that Lord Boyd Orr at some meeting put forth the view that the world might as well face the fact that it had, as it were, to match deficiencies with surpluses or we would be in grave peril. As a matter of fact, we have been doing that for years with regard to western Europe and far east in Europe. Lord Boyd Orr raised the whole question as to whether our imagination has got to range much more widely. Without undertaking an expression of opinion on that matter I suggest that it is not a matter which any of us can disregard.
I have tried to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, this strange intellectual aberration which took these people into the communist fold-and then happily their better natures reasserted themselves and they came back. But we know that there are a great many people who have not come back. I suggest that we are "put on the spot" in no uncertain way to consider our own position. A striking speech was made about a year ago by a man who is well known to most hon. members. I refer to Bruce Hutchison. He made it in Winnipeg, and he says some things with which we may not agree; nevertheless they are said by a serious man to serious people. He was speaking to the St. Andrew's society, and I think you will agree that is serious enough. He says some things that I think we should not brush aside. He said:
Now, clearly the idea of democracy is at war with the idea of dictatorship. Freedom is at war with slavery. Certainly, but what do we mean by

Communist Activities in Canada democracy? What do we mean by freedom? And why do we fight for them? It's time we got down to examining our own motives . . .
The basic, the terrible and perhaps the fatal thing that has happened to our civilization can now be grasped and understood. . . It is that our western civilization is losing, if it has not already lost, its faith in its beginnings.
We are not going to admit that, but here is a serious man saying it; and it cannot be lightly regarded. I go on to read again. He gives what I think is a perfectly wise definition of the difference between our civilization and the Russian one. He refers to-
. . . the original assumption, common to Christianity and other religions, that the universe is managed by a system of invisible order, and that every man is protected by certain natural laws beyond the reach of human legislatures.
Then later on he says that the Russians reject this wholly, and he goes on to make what I think again is a searching statement:
Since there is no universal power,-
This is the Russian view.
-nothing is left but the power which some men can exert over others.
There I think you have it stated clearly. That is their faith: power, naked power and nothing else. Then he goes on to say:
It is this cardinal lie, this father of all lies, which spawns the Russian system and the Hitler system and every system of tyranny. It is this lie we are now accepting in the western world under the name of science or progress, or political panacea, or economic enlightenment or ultimate truth, or anything else you care to call it.
Then finally he says:
If this goes on we shall be trying to oppose the resurgence of a powerful pagan idea, which has destroyed many civilizations in the past, without any contrary idea of our own in a struggle which ideas, and not other weapons, will finally settle.
Some may feel that these are strange arguments to be using in a secular assembly on the matter of communism; but I make no apology for doing it because it seems to me that these are matters in which we have all got to interest ourselves, not merely the churches and not merely the educational institutions, although the responsibility is primarily theirs, and although I suppose we must look to them chiefly for leadership. But we must not forget our own part because there is the final challenge that we have all got to face.
I have been talking about matters which go far beyond any amendment or indeed far beyond any law. Yet the law cannot be disregarded because it enters into all areas and all departments of human conflict. It is for that reason that I shall support this amendment which, as I have said more than once, is not suggesting any witch-hunting or any psychoanalysis. It is merely suggesting that the department shall use its best endeavours


to see whether the law can be , still further improved to the end that, as to the efforts of all agencies-labour, business and every other agency-that are seeking to deal with this matter which threatens the very vitals of our existence, these efforts may be further assisted.


Major James William Coldwell: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I was not here during the whole of the address of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) yesterday; I entered the house just before he moved the amendment under discussion. I have listened with a great deal of interest this afternoon to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) for whom I have a great respect, particularly because I have known in days gone by how forthrightly he has stood for civil liberty. I quite sympathize with him when he says that he belonged to a civil liberties association some few years ago into which the communist or Labour-Progressive party infiltrated, and described how these people remained until the dying moments of a meeting in order to get their kind of resolution through after the more democratic people had got tired and had gone home to bed, which is the usual practice of communists and others of like mind. He criticized the C.C.F. because, he says, on the address on February 20 we amended the amendment to a motion that was then before the house by adding words to it. Let me point out that the amendment when amended dealt with "harmful activities of communists and fascists in Canada". It was not the same, nor had it the same intent, as the amendment moved yesterday by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). If we examine the language of yesterday we find that it reads as follows:
Legislation should be introduced so that communist and similar activities in Canada may be made an offence punishable under the Criminal Code.
These activities were interpreted this afternoon by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) as overt acts, if I may use the term that he himself used. Let me point out to him that in all democratic countries, at least within the British commonwealth of nations, there is on the statute books today legislation adequate, I am sure the Minister of Justice would say, to deal with overt acts of sedition or conspiracy to commit overt acts. Consequently, as far as that goes, the two amendments were different in their conception. Perhaps I might go further and say that, in my opinion, the policy of the government under discussion at that time involved also failure to do certain things, we will say, for the unemployed, to improve our social security legislation and so on. But I am not going into that phase of it this afternoon.

I rose to say that I view with a considerable amount of misgiving the obvious intent of an amendment of this description placed before the House of Commons. Throughout the ages our forefathers have fought for certain civil rights, and I believe that the freer people are to express opinions, the freer to organize, even when we think the organization may be against the public interest, so long as there is no conspiracy to commit overt acts, and overt acts are not committed, the better it will be. Throughout the ages we have found the way of dealing with movements such as we are now discussing. Go back into our history, and we find that the foundations of the freedoms that we now possess were established in Magna Carta as long ago as 1215, guaranteeing to every man a fair trial by his peers. Then we have habeas corpus whereby no man may be arrested and incarcerated without charge and trial. Yesterday when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was speaking, he referred to criticisms of himself as minister of justice several years ago. The criticism that was made of the government and of the minister of justice at that time was that people had been picked up without charge and without trial, and incarcerated, and that no opportunity was given for their production in court to be properly charged under the law. I think that was the criticism that was made of the government at that time. On occasion we contrast that with what happened in the United Kingdom, where, for example, Dr. Allan Nunn May was picked up, taken into Old Bailey, charged, speedily tried and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. That is the method which is time-honoured under our democratic procedure.
I do not like to see any suggestion introduced into this chamber which would seem to indicate that we are going to do something beyond what we have done so successfully to curb subversive activities in the past.
About a week ago I was asked by telegram to express an opinion on this very matter. Not knowing it was going to be introduced into this house, I replied by telegram in these words:
Speaking as the leader of a democratic socialist party actively opposing communism, I believe outlawing of communist party political error of the first magnitude. All of our countries have seditious conspiracy acts under which subversive activities can be dealt with according to law. To drive the party underground encourages secret conspiracy, arouses ill-placed sympathy, jeopardizes legitimate political discussion and undermines faith in our democratic institutions.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the position that I want to emphasize before this house this afternoon. There is of course always a danger from people who do not believe in constitutional methods. That danger comes not only
Communist Activities in Canada from the communist party, but from other parties right on the other side that today we lump under the heading of fascists. When we speak of safeguarding our Christian civilization let us bear in mind that the churches have recognized-and when I say "the churches" I mean all the churches-that communism as we know it today arises very largely out of the misery and want of depressed peoples.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Greenwood pointed out that often the leaders of those movements were not those who suffered poverty, misery and want. To some extent that is true; but the following which they gain is among the mass of the people who suffer from evil conditions; and we have to beware lest we confuse agitation against evil conditions with communist activities. Not so long ago practically everyone who criticized the evils of the present system of society was classified as communist, and sometimes was persecuted as such.
I have on my desk the report and encyclical of the archbishops and the bishops of the church of which I happen to be a member. In 1948, at Lambeth, 329 archbishops and bishops of the Anglican communion in all lands met to consider what they termed the nature of man and man's obligations to society. They have one or two things to say in that report that I think are pertinent to a discussion of this kind. They say this:
Communism cannot be overcome by argument alone. It has to be outlived, not merely out-fought. Under the providence of God its truths will pass into the experience of humanity; its untruths and half-truths will be self-destructive. It is for the church to be faithful to the word of God and for Christians to live, and, if need be, die for the truth of God as He allows them to see it. But let us be sure that its martyrs die for the Kingdom of Christ and not for some lesser loyalty. By making common cause with anti-communist forces, the church might have some success but such a short-term policy would prove in the end to be disastrous to the church, both in the east and in the west.
And then this to the members of their communion:
(Churchmen) must do full justice to the truth in communism, both its critical insights into history and its desire to help the oppressed.
The church ought not to allow itself to be identified with social reaction. Its members should be ready for social and economic change and quick to welcome into the councils of the church men and women with the workers' experience of living conditions. '
What is true of a church is true of this assembly. If I understand the basis of this institution, it is an institution in which ideas of various sorts may be expressed and advanced, sifted, accepted or rejected. It seems to me if we are going to agree that in this institution that is the democratic

Communist Activities in Canada procedure, then by che same token we have to admit that this is the proper procedure in society.
What I am afraid of in regard to a resolu

tion of this description is that legislation flowing from it may be used either now or in the future to prevent free discussion, free consideration, and activities that should be of a proper nature. Let us remember that in the long struggle for freedom of action and freedom of speech ideas have arisen from time to time which have not been acceptable to a majority of the people where they have arisen. That was true to a large extent of religious ideas a few short centuries ago.
I recollect that in 1671 a man who became famous in the story of the great republic to the south, William Penn, and his colleague William Mead, became Quakers. They were execrated by the country in which they lived. They tried to propagate their ideas. They were arrested for preaching openly, on the street, to some three or four hundred people in the city of London. The magistrate who tried them instructed the jury to convict for causing a riot, although no riot had taken place. The jury-that safeguard, in my opinion, of the rights of the common people-refused to accept the instructions of the magistrate. Though the jury were confined by the magistrate, habeas corpus proceedings were instituted and they were released. The jury's verdict of acquittal then had to be accepted.
It is through age-old methods, old and historic customs which have grown up in our society, that we can protect it against subversive activities. We have the laws on our statute books today-and I have no doubt the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) can, and perhaps will, point them out to us in this debate. We have adequate laws dealing with sedition, seditious conspiracy and the committing of overt acts. But I believe we endanger the effectiveness of our laws when we drive underground the activities of subversive elements, whether they be communist or fascist.
I venture to say we would have heard very little of one or two of the leading men in the present Labour-Progressive party in this country had they not been arrested during a time of grave unemployment and difficulty in the thirties, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. We created for the communist party-or the Labour-Progressive party, if you care to call it that now, for it is the same thing-certain martyrs. That martyrdom was held up across the country in order to attract attention and to bring persons
rMr. Coldwell.]
of ill-founded sympathy into their movement to support their cause. Consequently I say the house would be well advised to vote the amendment down.
Let me repeat that we have on the statute books in my opinion all that we require in order to meet this menace of Soviet communism in Canada. Let me also point out that Canada's representative approved the universal declaration of human rights of the United Nations. Looking at the preamble of this document, in the second paragraph I find this:
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and-
And then these words:
-the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.
Then if I look at the actual articles we have approved I find that article 19 of this declaration says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Yesterday we heard the suggestion that there should be some limitation of certain parts of the press of this country. Let me repeat my belief that our democratic institutions and our democratic ways are sufficiently strong that we do not need to fear a handful of people who are circulating literature against our institutions, and who are engaged in propaganda against this institution of parliament and against those institutions which guarantee to us the freedoms we now enjoy, provided, of course, they do not propose their violent overthrow.
Then, article 20 states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Assembly or association to discuss, to criticize, to plan, to forward and to promote our ideas within the law. Then, article 22:
Everyone as a member of society has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each state, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
And article 23(1):
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
If we fulfil the articles of this declaration of human rights, then that, in my opinion, and not by legislating against activities of the

type discussed in the house in the last day or two, is the manner in which to meet the threat of communism. And so I say that in the light of the long experience that we in these democracies and these institutions have had, with the legislation now on our statute books sufficient to deal with overt acts, we would be ill-advised indeed to pass new legislation comparable with that we had on the statute books under the heading of section 98.
I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I did rise to say that if we are going to protect civil liberties and if we are going to place before the people of other countries Canada as a free nation, then let us not adopt any of the methods of countries behind the iron curtain. The more we suppress, the more ammunition we give them to fight us and perhaps if we give them enough ammunition, ultimately to destroy us.
The issue was raised, I think by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing), about the issuance of a passport to Mr. Tim Buck. The passport was not issued to him in order that he might go on his recent journey to visit Soviet satellite countries. I felt that that was a question that it was better not to have raised in this house. After all we do not want to be in the position of the countries behind the iron curtain where people are not allowed to move freely because of their political opinions. The farther we get away from that kind of thing the stronger we are in our ability to fight communism in all its forms.
Goodness knows, I have no love for the Labour-Progressive party or the communist party or any of their activities. Indeed, sometimes they describe me in their speeches as enemy No. 1. The very book quoted this afternoon by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) containing six essays by six former outstanding members of the communist party has a preface written by one of the leading democratic socialists of Great Britain, Mr. Richard Crossman, M.P. The words of that preface which the hon. gentleman read are words with which we can agree absolutely.
I was not here yesterday but my colleagues from Vancouver East and Winnipeg North said exactly what I would have said had I been here and what I have in mind today, that if we want to protect this country against subversive ideas then let us remove the conditions in which they may flourish and go forward confident in our free institutions and in our traditions of democracy. Then I am confident we can meet any threat from any quarter which Stalin may control.
Communist Activities in Canada


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, in opening the statement which I think should be made today by the head of the Department of Justice may I first of all congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on having introduced for discussion a matter the importance of which I think every one will agree is quite beyond exaggeration. There may be those who will think that he placed too much stress upon the dangers with which politically free countries of the world are faced in the present world situation, but I am certainly not one of those who think so.
One has only to consider a few of the main circumstances of the situation to realize that today political freedom is in mortal danger of extinction. One has only to realize that the greatest land mass in the world with uncounted resources and millions of virile if untrained people, people who do not chafe under the lack of freedom because most of them have never enjoyed it, have been brought, if not under the direct control, certainly under effective indirect control of the masters of the Kremlin.
We have only to consider that the mounting of any kind of revolution against such a group of determined men is a vastly different thing from what it has ever been at any previous historic time. In the days of the Roman emperors any group of resolute and determined men who could possess themselves of a few relatively primitive weapons of that day could mount and sustain a revolution for considerable periods of time. The history of the later days of the Roman empire is filled with reports of efforts by the emperors to put down revolutions in various parts of the empire.
But now that war has become the end of a complicated series of assembly lines which stretch back, not only into the forests and the fields and the workshops and the mines but into the research laboratories where hundreds of scientists are working, with perhaps only a few knowing what the whole scope of their inquiry is about, it is apparent that once a group of men as determined and able and ruthless as the masters of the Kremlin have got into the controlling situation in which they are in Russia at the present time, it is almost impossible for anything except a palace revolution to upset their might.
That is the world in which the free countries live at the present time. We are living in the face of a proclaimed philosophy which has for its purpose the destruction of our system of government and our way of life and which states that it is impossible in this one small world for both our system and

Communist Activities in Canada the communist system to survive. It may have been that a quarter of a century ago we would have been disinclined to pay too much attention to these warnings, but after having been through a great war which was caused in no small part by the fact that we failed to heed similar warnings by Adolf Hitler, I think few thoughtful people today will want to regard our present predicament as other than exceedingly serious.
Without wishing to traverse ground which has been covered at great length by preceding speakers who have dealt with what might be called the political philosophy aspect of this matter, I think it is rather important to state that free countries are abandoning one of their most powerful weapons, if not the most powerful in their whole arsenal, when they in any way abridge political freedom. Unlike the preceding speaker, I am not one who thinks that the resolution now before us would go very far in that direction. After the long and interesting and vigorous speech with which the leader of the opposition introduced this debate and in which he reviewed, although quite cursorily, what had been done in the way of legislation in Australia, South Africa and other countries; after he appeared to be making the strongest possible case for the introduction of repressive legislation in this chamber, I was very much surprised to find that the text of the amendment which he introduced rather dimmed the impression of what I thought was going to be delineated as repressive legislation; and any idea that repressive legislation might have been in mind was totally dispelled by the lucid presentation of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) when he rose to speak.
I think we will all agree that the hon. member for Eglinton is a good lieutenant to his leader. No leader could wish for better in my opinion, but the hon. member for Eglinton suffers from what, in relation to his leader, is a terrible handicap. He has a clear mind.
When he applies his clear mind in this case to the rather vague language limned in his leader's oratory of course he cannot help but let the cat out of the bag, and what a tiny kitten it proved to be. For the hon. member made it, to use a phrase he is fond of using himself, crystal clear that his party does not propose as in Australia to declare the communist party outlawed or to dissolve it or to appoint a receiver for its property with any surplus over liabilities going to the government. They do not propose as in Australia to permit the governor general to outlaw organizations, other than trade unions, which are dominated by the communist party; nor to provide imprisonment for
[Mr. Garson.l
officers and members of unlawful associations who do not cease their activities; nor to empower the governor general to publish the names of any members of the communist party or its organizations after May 10 whose activities he, the governor general, deems prejudicial to the government; nor that any person declared to be prejudicial will be barred from employment in the government or government authority. Nor does the- Conservative party propose, as in Australia, that such a person may be banned from holding a job in any of the key industries of the country. These provisions that I have named are merely omissions from the speech of the hon. member for Eglinton, but let me list some of the express disclaimers taken from his speech at page 2106 of Hansard. He said:
What this amendment proposes to illegallze is overt acts.
In another place on the same page he said:
The acts at which this amendment is directed are acts which, as I have said . . . strike at the roots of our freedom:
Further down on the same page he said:
There is no suggestion here of . . . purges of libraries . . . There is no suggestion here of destroying . . . books . . .
At page 2107 of Hansard he said:
The people will want to know what are the essentials of that foul doctrine of communism.
He said that making communism an offence under the Criminal Code was not what was proposed by the leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Drew). Further down on the same page he said:
There is nothing here that calls for a discussion of the padlock law.
On page 2108 he proceeds to spell it out even further. He said:
If you simply passed legislation to declare the Labour-Progressive party to be an illegal organization, that would not get at the root of the problem.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, with all these statements of what the amendment does not mean it is quite clear that the sort of concept of legislation indicated in the amendment is certainly not very repressive. I do not think the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) has much to fear in that regard. I shall show-and on this point I entirely agree with him-that the amendment if drafted could not be an amendment to the law as it stands at the present time because everything that the amendment is designed to cover is in the law now.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow one question before he goes on?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: He was dealing with Australia, and I followed him with great interest. Are there any other clauses or terms in this legislation to which he has not referred? I merely ask for the purpose of information. I was quite interested in what the minister was saying.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should not like to say definitely whether or not there are. The source of my information was what I thought was the best source available at the present time, the New York Times. I have listed the main headings.


John George Diefenbaker: I saw that. I thought possibly he had the bill.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest if we were to pass this resolution and if we were going to give it any effect, as we would have to do, that if we called in the most skilful draftsman we could obtain and he started to put the ideas in this resolution into an amendment to the code, and if he left out all that the hon. member for Eglinton has said is not meant by it, he would discover that there is not a single thing which is said to be meant by the amendment which is not prohibited at the present time by the Official Secrets Act or in the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with unlawful assembly, treason, sedition or seditious conspiracy.
I do not want to detain the house too long, and the time available to me this afternoon makes it impossible for me to deal in any great detail with all of these sections. Let me look for a moment at the crime which I think is most closely relevant to this discussion, that of sedition. It is covered at the present time by section 134 of the code, but it is not defined, and for very good reasons which were referred to by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. They will be found at page 3900 of volume IV of Hansard for 1936. This is what he said on that occasion:
May I read what constitutes sedition in the English and Empire Digest, 15th volume, at page 633:
"An intention to excite ill-will between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects may be seditious intention; whether or not it is so in any particular case must be decided upon by the jury after taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case. Sedition embraces everything, whether by word, deed, or writing, which is calculated to disturb the tranquility of the state, and lead ignorant persons to subvert the government and laws of the empire."
Later on the same page he refers to Hals-bury's Laws of England, second edition, volume IX, and quotes the following:
Sedition is a misdemeanour at common law consisting of acts done, works spoken and published, or writings capable of being a libel published, in each case with a seditious intention.
Where the words are oral the offence is called the speaking of seditious words; where the words are written the offence is called the publication of
Communist Activities in Canada seditious libel; where two or more combine for the furtherance of a seditious intention the offence is called seditious conspiracy.
Then it goes on to prescribe the penalty. This is a pretty all-embracing sort of crime, and as I shall indicate later by quoting from a source which I hope my hon. friends opposite will regard as accurate, Mr. Meighen, there is a very excellent reason why it has not been defined in the law.
I would point out the fact that in connection with sedition, as with all other crimes, the problem of enforcement arises, the problem of apprehending the transgressor, of prosecuting him, and in proper cases of convicting him.
In that connection there is an old saying which I do not think has ever been improved upon as a statement of the position. It is very sententious and covers the whole point, and is to the effect that the devil himself knoweth not the mind of man. So even if we were to pass a law, which would be contrary to our political principles, making the mere holding of seditious thoughts an offence under the code, we still would have no way of knowing what were the thoughts of any man, or of proving what they were in a court of law, until we could adduce what he had either said, written or done, to indicate what was in his mind. In other words that overt act would be on the one hand evidence of what he had in his mind and also, under our law, the basis of the charge of sedition against him.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a careful examination of the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with unlawful assembly, treason and sedition will indicate, particularly in the case of sedition, that the law today is sufficiently extensive to support convictions in all those cases where overt acts can be proved, which I think was the point made by the leader of the C.C.F. party. And I suggest that in those cases in which overt acts cannot be proved, the mere creation of a new offence of communist activity, or similar activities, would not overcome the need of evidence to establish those overt acts, for without an overt act we have no evidence of wrong ideas or of communist activity or similar activities. That is a practical reason, I think, why in the other place, when the question of the repeal of section 98 was being considered, Senator Meighen said that even section 98 did not punish anyone for his ideas. Speaking of a memorandum which had been read to the members of the other place by the government leader there, from the then minister of justice, Senator Meighen put it in this rather pungent language:
The memorandum quotes an opinion of Macaulay's that it is only when the individual, having

Communist Activities in Canada harboured wrong ideas, gives effect to them to the detriment of the state that he ought to be punished. Who within the four walls of parliament or anything other than a lunatic asylum would ever entertain a contrary opinion?
That is to say, in line with what was said a few moments ago by the leader of the C.C.F. party, it is only for overt acts that punishment is inflicted. Then Senator Meighen went on, speaking of section 98:
This section never did, does not now, and never could punish anybody for harbouring an opinion, nowever foolish, lunatic or dangerous.
I believe I have heard or read somewhere, though at the moment I must confess I cannot recall when or where-and I hope my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, who is not in his seat, will correct me if I am wrong-that on occasion he has advocated the reintroduction of section 98 into the Criminal Code. Certainly during the present debate the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) had this to say, at page 2108 of Hansard:
It is worth remembering that in the past communists in this country have been placed upon trial for offences of the kind I have been describing here tonight. It was not when the law was in its present form.
Here I interject that as far as the law of sedition is concerned, the only recent time it was not in its present form was when sec-ti&n 98 was in the Criminal Code.
It was at an earlier period when there were some teeth in the law.
I suggest that up to this point in his argument the irresistible inference on the part of one who heard the hon. member for Eglinton was that he was in favour of the reinstatement of those teeth in the law; but in the very next sentence he backed away from it:
At the moment I am not advocating any particular and' detailed form of legislation.
So we have had some strong words against communism, some references to indicate the great virtues of section 98, but a backing away from taking responsibility for suggesting definitely that it should be reintroduced. The hon. member then went on to explain at great length why in the case of Rex v. Tim Buck it was possible to get a conviction; and I leave it to hon. members whether the impression he left was not that this conviction was brought about because of the presence of section 98 in the Criminal Code. It will be recalled that I asked the hon. member what were the charges against the accused in that case. That question was evaded, although quite relevant to this discussion.
The fact of the matter is that in Rex v. Buck, the citation for which is 57 Canadian Criminal Cases, page 291, the accused was


charged under three counts, two of which were under section 98 and the third a count of seditious conspiracy under the law as it was then and as it still is. The wording of the third count, and I am reading the exact form of the indictment, was that the accused-
-did become and continue to be members of the communist party in Canada, a section of the communist international, and did conspire together to further the objects and aims of the said party and1 the objects and aims of the said communist party of Canada, a section of the communist international, are of a seditious nature intended to incite His Majesty's subjects to attempt otherwise than by lawful means the alteration of the government of the Dominion of Canada and to incite persons to commit crimes and disturbances of the peace and raise discontent or disaffection among His Majesty's subjects, and promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects.
I put it to any reasonable person whether or not an indictment describing activities in those broad terms would not cover communist activities, under the law as it stands at the present time. The result of that case was very significant. The accused were found guilty on all counts. What did that mean? It meant that if there had been no section 98 in the Criminal Code at that time, in the absence of that section a charge of seditious conspiracy could have been laid, and, as the case turned out, a conviction obtained.
As I indicated earlier, I am somewhat fortified in my views as to the relative efficacy of section 98 as compared with the law as it stands at the present time, by the views of a man who I am sure shares the feelings of hon. members of the Conservative party opposite, on the subject of communism. That is Senator Meighen, to whom I referred a moment ago. What did he say about section 98 in the discussions that took place at the time it was being repealed? I quote from his address on that occasion.


John George Diefenbaker: What date was that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I can give it to my hon. friend afterwards.


John George Diefenbaker: You have not got it there?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I have it here, but I shall have to search for it. It was June 20, 1936.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He says:
Nothing forbidden under section 98 was lawful before section 98 was passed.
It was unlawful before section 98 was passed and unlawful after it was passed.
The section simply made specific and definite a certain line of conduct which always had been sedition; but it was put in the form of words, definitely described so that there would be warning to everybody that such a thing was sedition. In this connection I want to discuss what sedition is.

And this is an exceedingly important statement that he now makes.
In the common law of England sedition has not been defined, nor has fraud, for the very obvious reason that any definition that the wit of man could devise of either one or the other could be circumvented by some act which, while it would be sedition or fraud, would not be so within the definition. But sedition has always been a crime and heavily punished. The courts have decided on the facts just what constituted sedition, and out of those decisions there has grown a body of jurisprudence, which is in effect today in England, and indeed in all civilized countries, though not of course the same in all, that forbids sedition under all circumstances and at all times.
That law is in effect in Canada today,
Now let us look at the use that was made of section 98. Maybe I do my hon. friends an injustice, but if seems to me that the only possible interpretation that could be put upon the language which is used in the resolution is that it favours the reintroduction either of section 98 in its precise form or of some substantially similar provision. Let us see what use was made of it during, if I mistake not, the sixteen years it was in the code. Last year, in order to ascertain to what extent this section was invoked in the enforcement of the law as being one good indication of its value in stopping communism, I had my deputy write to the deputy attorneys general of the provinces to find out how many times it had been used during the whole period of its existence. I received the following report:
Use of Section 98
Prince Edward Island	 none
Nova Scotia	 none
New Brunswick	 none
Manitoba	 none
Alberta	 none
British Columbia	 one
There was the following report from the deputy attorney general of Ontario:
In connection with your telegram of the 7th instant regarding section 98 of the Criminal Code, the only record we have of a prosecution-
He goes on to say that the only record he has of this is the case of Rex v. Tim Buck. Then he says:
This department does not keep statistics, and it is of course possible that there have been others, but a search of our files indicates only the one, and I have no recollection of any other prosecutions under that section.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, during the whole period of its existence, at a time when, I suggest, there was at least as much communistic activity and sentiment as there is at the present time-and I think a great deal more-the only single occasion of which there is any record -1 should enter a correction there; we have no reply from Quebec, so we do not know whether it was invoked in that province or
3,	1950	2141
Communist Activities in Canada not-in these other provinces on which section 98 was used was in the case of Rex v. Tim Buck, and in this case it would have been possible to have secured a conviction, and a conviction was secured, on the third count of seditious conspiracy. .1 would therefore be curious to know what sort of provision, in line with the resolution which has been moved by the Conservative party in this chamber, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and his legal advisers could produce which he would think would accomplish the purpose that he has in mind and which is not already covered by the existing law.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, surely.


John George Diefenbaker: Did he or anyone in his department have the draftsmen of his department, within the last year, draw a draft suggested amendment to provide for changes to-be made in the law of sedition in order to cover the present situation with respect to communism?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I think not, Mr. Speaker.. I am just speaking offhand, of course.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister would
remember that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I do not. I am sorry, but I do not remember.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But in any case, it would not necessarily be relevant to the particular aspect of the matter that we are discussing at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: I was asking for information. I thought the minister would know what had happened.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In any case, Mr. Speaker, if such a section were drafted by my hon. friend I would feel that our proper course in this chamber-which was the course we followed not so long ago upon another occasion-was to refer such an amendment or such a provision to the attorneys general of the provinces by whom, and only by whom, under our constitution, the law is enforced and order maintained. The leader of the opposition seemed to be under a considerable-misapprehension in this regard when he was indicating the other day that the Department of Justice was at fault in not having taken-some action with regard to the foreign, language newspapers in Toronto that, in his-view, were guilty of publishing sedition. In; making that charge against the Department, of Justice, I think that he was taking a. position which was rather embarrassing to himself, in that these same papers-I would
2142	HOUSE OF
Communist Activities in Canada not say all of them, but most of them-were engaged in publishing the same sort of matter,
I suggest,-and probably he could tell us- during the time he was premier of Ontario and during the time his attorney general and his government had the responsibility for enforcing this section of the Criminal Code in that province.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has made a statement with which I should deal immediately. The quotations that I gave were quotations from Vestnik of this year. I used them as illustrations of the type of thing that is now being published.
I definitely have information that there has been a steady acceleration of this type of production. When I said that this was something peculiarly within the responsibility of the Department of Justice, I would point out that there is a branch of the R.C.M.P., which is under his authority, which deals with this subject; and also that the provincial governments have not the translating facilities .available to deal with this matter. But I (know he has. I know that he is having translations made within his department I (hope with his knowledge-of these various papers at this time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is quite right in saying that we have the translating facilities. But I should think that a man who has held himself out, for so long as he has done, as an authority upon dominion-provincial matters would by now, after these many years, have come to know, by contacts in the house or in the Ontario legislature, that it is the provincial attorneys general who have the administration of justice and not the Department of Justice which he has been criticizing.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, these statements must be corrected. It is not the provincial attorneys general. The provinces are responsible for the administration of justice, and the Minister of Justice has it within his authority to act in every single case where he knows of any offence under the Criminal Code.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest to my hon. friend with all deference that he is quite wrong; that if and when we act we act on the authority and with the approval previously obtained from the attorney general, as we know to our cost, because on some occasions provincial attorneys general-I am not mentioning any province in particular here-wish us to appoint counsel, whom we pay, to represent them in such a prosecution.


George Alexander Drew: Which you initiate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend would take the trouble to get the British North America Act and read section 92 he would find that what I am telling him is quite correct.
In his interjection my hon. friend intimated that there has been-I have forgotten the word he used-rather a change for the worse in these publications. I hope it is not because of his departure from Ontario as premier that these papers have changed for the worse.


George Alexander Drew: That is a silly statement, a typically silly statement.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, that was my hon. friend's statement, and I agree that it is silly. I am in entire agreement with that.


George Alexander Drew: You are dealing with a serious subject. Deal with it in that way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial attorneys general themselves who have this responsibility, and who discharge it when they feel there is occasion to do so, have made no representations to our department that the present sections of the Criminal Code and the Official Secrets Act are inadequate to deal with what we have been referring to in this debate here today. And I must confess with all deference that this fact carries considerable weight with me, because it seems to me that these men who have the responsibility are the ones best qualified to express opinions upon this point, and when we receive no general representations from them that amendments are required, we are inclined to feel that the law in its present state is satisfactory. May I say that we are confirmed in that view by the very resolution which we are discussing here today, because, as explained by the hon. member for Eglinton, it indicates no substantial change whatever in the law.
In the course of discussing this matter the hon. member for Eglinton said, as reported at page 2109 of Hansard:
On looking at the present state of the law, I remind hon. members that the state of the law in Canada today is not as it was when those communists were convicted of the offence of inciting the use of force to overthrow the governmental structure of this country.
He was of course referring to the prosecution of Tim Buck and his associates. Then he goes on to say at page 2110:
In the year 1936 when the parliament amended the Criminal Code it eliminated the offences of which the communists, in the trial to which I have referred, were convicted.
That statement, Mr. Speaker, is in part incorrect. It is true that in that year section 98 was eliminated; but the section providing for seditious conspiracy, under which the

third charge against Tim Buck was laid, and upon which he was found guilty, was not eliminated, and is still in the law today.
I might add this point, that the repeal of section 98 did not in any way embarrass the prosecution of the communists and fellow travellers arising out of the Gouzenko disclosures. Under the law as it then stood, it was possible to convict, and we did convict, a number of those persons. And more than that, I say quite confidently that if section 98 had been in the Criminal Code at the time of those prosecutions arising out of the Gouzenko disclosures it would not have enabled us to secure a single conviction in those cases in which there happened to be an acquittal.
It is for these reasons that, while agreeing entirely with everything that the hon. members of the Conservative party have said with regard to the danger of communism- and I think I can speak for every member in this house when I say that interested as we were, and honoured as we were to hear the eloquent statements of the case which they made, there was not one of us who did not entirely agree with all that was said in that regard because we were of that view before they got up to speak at all-agreeing with all that, I suggest that whatever ideal merits the position which my hon. friends have taken in this matter may have-and I admit that the ideal merits are excellent-what they have completely failed to prove in the course of their arguments yesterday and again today is that the law as we have it now is inadequate; and more particularly they have completely failed to prove that any amendment along the lines of that which they are advocating would serve any purpose which the law as at present constituted might fail to serve.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister the unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In some cases I confess that what might seem to be actions warranting prosecutions are not prosecuted; but before we criticize the provincial attorney general and his law officers in these cases in the course which they follow, let us remember that there are many exceedingly bitter, and highly intelligent, enemies of communism who are quite as sincerely, and in some cases perhaps soundly, of the view-I think this view was expressed only this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell)-that communism underground is less subject to control by the lawful authorities; that communism underground can have more effective contacts with those whom
Communist Activities in Canada they wish to convert; that communism underground is a much more sinister and dangerous movement than it is aboveground where it is now.
If in the exercise of their sincere judgment any provincial attorney general-I am not saying this to be unfair at all, but for example the attorney general of Ontario, when my hon. friend was premier of that province -sees fit not to prosecute in some such case, one should not immediately jump to the conclusion that this is necessarily an unwise action on his part.


George Alexander Drew: Is the minister referring to any specific case?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not at all.


George Alexander Drew: Well, don't leave an impression which is inconsistent with the situation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In any case, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my hon. friend who has just made the interjection that any representations which he has to make as to whether it is an unwise action or not should be addressed to those whose responsibility it is to take them.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the fundamental question which we have to decide here is this: Do we really believe in a free society? Are we seriously and sincerely convinced that the minds of free men possess convictions that are impervious to totalitarian attack? If our answer to this question is "No," we shall believe in repression by the state, approaching, as time goes on, more and more closely to totalitarian repression itself. But if we think, as we on this side of the house think, that the answer to this question is "yes, free men can and will resist communist ideas," then we shall follow the course which we have followed since 1936 of treating Canadian citizens as a group as free men; of leaving for example to the trade unions the matter of clearing their own ranks of communism in a democratic manner. We shall follow the course taken by the greatest exponent of liberty that the world has ever known, of a great nation in whose traditions I had thought the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was steeped, the beleaguered people of Great Britain who, locked in a death struggle with totalitarian evil, carried on to victory with the weapons of freedom; whose free parliament, sitting almost continuously throughout the course of the conflict, kept repression of individual liberty to an absolute minimum even in the face of death itself.
And it is greatly significant, Mr. Speaker, that of all the countries which have had to contend with this evil of communism, there are none in which the efforts to contain it, judged on a purely practical basis, have been

Communist Activities in Canada so successful as in Great Britain and in Canada, countries which, to combat totalitarianism, used not the weapons of totalitarianism itself but the weapons of freedom.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask the minister a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


George Alexander Drew: Has the minister forgotten the Defence of the Realm Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But I will say in conclusion to the hon. member, who is so very fond of interrupting other people when they are speaking, that if we should ever have to change our policy in this regard, then I suggest that we should need something with more substance to it than that which is outlined in my hon. friend's resolution now before us.


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be as brief as possible. My stand on this very important question was taken long ago. I remember the first occasion, in 1937, when I spoke about communism in the House of Commons, and when I saw in front of me people smiling with incredulity because I was telling the house that communism was very dangerous and was on our threshold.
I believe it was the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) who said this afternoon that he did not understand clearly the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) that what was to be feared most was Russian imperialism. 1 do not know if we must fear Russian Imperialism more than we fear communism. But there is one sure fact and it is this, that Russian imperialism is and for a hundred years has been existing in the minds of the Russian government.
I remember that when speaking in the house in 1946 I read a few excerpts from a book written by Henri Massis of the French Academy the title of which, I believe, was "Russia", in which he stated that Pierre le Grand, Peter the Great, had been the most imperialist of all the Russians. I remember that Henri Massis in his thesis made very clear something which should be made clear to every member in the house, that communist imperialism was not more dangerous than the imperialism sponsored by Peter the Great in that time.
I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs was speaking truthfully when he said that we must fear Russian imperialism at the same time as we fear communist imperialism. I believe my stand in this matter has been made clear over a number of years in the house. I believe the situation was stated 
correctly by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) when, in his brief but interesting speech yesterday, he referred to the words uttered by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when speaking at Loyola college the other day: "We need faith by deeds; genuine brotherhood cannot be achieved without faith in God."
These words, sir, should stand as a beacon in a lighthouse to all the population of Canada. I believe we do not face communism in the way it should be faced. I realize I have been radical in the stand I have taken in the past. I thought the only way to stop communism from spreading in our country was to ban it. Now,- however, after having studied very carefully the writings of many noted authors, I believe that there are different ways of stopping the spread of communism. The banning of it may be one way of dealing with it; but it is not the only way, and it is a dangerous way.
I remember speaking in the house on April 16, 1948, when, as reported at page 3035 of Hansard, I said:
To hear some members in this debate one might think that a few of them-fortunately only a few- were ready to give equal freedom to evil and good.
I believe I was on very sound ground when I said that I was not prepared, and that the house ought not to be prepared, in its effort to give as great freedom as possible to our population, to give at the same time the same freedom to both evil and good. In giving that freedom we have made one of our mistakes-and this has been done not only in Canada but in the world at large. Then I continued on that occasion:
In my province we are not ready to give equal freedom to evil and good. It is all right to talk about civil rights and freedom, even for those who are organizing from central Europe in order that they may be ready to break our back when they judge the proper time has come. In this country it is useless to name those who are getting ready to break our back and to do it more rapidly than the house seems to think.
Then I continued:
That is why I would favour the passing of such a law-
I was then pretty radical.
-not because I believe that that is the only way to stop the spread of communism, Mr. Speaker; far from it. But if that is one of the weapons we need to stop the march of that evil theory to which some of us are ready to give freedom equal to what they give to the real democrats in this country, then we should use it.
I still repeat that if we think that is one of the ways to stop communism, we should take it. As I said before, however, I believe there are other ways. The words the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) uttered were the best possible to tell the population and those

who are fighting communism that they should start clearing away the dust that has gathered in their minds because of this evil philosophy.
I remember I took another stand when we were debating a bill that gave certain privileges to United States soldiers while in Canada. I remember that some of our C.C.F. friends did not like that bill and opposed it.
I recall that one Conservative member opposed it, I am not just sure which one, and I remember also that the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) made a good speech against communism. At that time I said:
The hon. member for Vancouver North stated that it would be foolish to ask this government and this parliament to extend to the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia and Hungary the same privileges being extended to the United States, a great, powerful and friendly nation. We cannot compare the friendship of Russian toward Canada with the friendship of the United States toward our country.
The member for Vancouver North at that time is now the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair). I went on to say that you could not overlook the dangerous infiltration of communism into the United States and Canada. While that debate was going on Reuters sent out the following report from London:
Moscow radio said in a news broadcast today that Canadians were getting "more and more uneasy" about impending "infiltration" of United States troops, consequent upon plans for United States-Canadian defence co-operation.
"In this draft", the broadcast said, "United States troops are given such privileges that have never before been given to foreign troops on territories of other countries in peacetime."
"Several articles of the Canadian Criminal Code will not be applied to the United States troops. Military and other United States authorities are granted full rights on the Canadian territory, providing only that they do not interfere with the local Canadian ones."
It is not enough to fight communism and to say that we are against communism; the fight should be intelligently conducted. At that time we gave to a friendly nation privileges that were necessary in order that they might help us if the time came when we would be needing help, and I am afraid that that day will come.
There are many things that should be corrected. A couple of weeks ago I spoke in this house about divorce and I hope I am not referring too much to a previous debate. One way that communism can enter our homes is through the disruption of family life. I think we all believe that the family is the basic cell of our society and we should do our utmost to see that it is not disrupted. I was reading about the new constitution proposed for Japan by General MacArthur. I realize that General MacArthur is doing his utmost
Communist Activities in Canada to fight communism, but I do not think he should give communists a chance to enter the social life of that country. Article XXII of that new constitution states:
Laws shall be enacted considering choice of spouse, property rights, inheritance, choice of domicile, divorce-
If you accept divorce in any declaration of human rights, you accept the possibility of the destruction of family life. You accept also the possibility of destroying that authority which we need so much, the authority of the father and mother over the family. In article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights of the United Nations it is stated:
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage cannot be dissolved; marriage is for life. If that article has remained in that declaration it is in absolute contradiction of good sense and common sense. It is stated in that declaration that the family is the natural and fundamental unit of society and is entitled to protection by the state. If we want to fight communism we must protect the basic cell of our society and not include in any declaration of human rights, whether it be Canadian, Japanese or otherwise, such declarations.
Karl Marx was quite unscrupulous when he spoke about religion, because among other# things he said that religion was:
The opium of the people.
An intoxicating poison.
Brain stuffing.
A capitalistic stimulant.
A bourgeois cure.
A seducing idea to stupify the people.
A repulsive ghost.
I think it is right to say that Marxism, and especially communism, is a religion. It is more than a philosophy, it is a religion. If you look closely at the organization in Russia you see that Stalin is set up as a god and they have the twelve apostles in the politburo. Images of these apostles and this god are distributed widely in schools and public places throughout Russia. They are trying to tear Christianity apart with their organization. They are trying to destroy God.
They know perfectly well that God cannot be destroyed but, at the same time, as was said yesterday by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), they are anti-God. I have no doubt they realize that they have a hard job to perform, but they do it just the same. They are keeping the people of Russia firmly in their grip. That is the only way to keep twenty million people in servitude in the concentration camps. It is anti-God when the
2146	HOUSE OF
Communist Activities in Canada clergy of any religion can be thrown out of the churches. Those who have been permitted to come back may enter their pulpits on the condition that they advocate communism and the policies of the Kremlin as being the best in the world, something that should be followed in Russia and throughout the world. Nobody can deny that, but sometimes Russia gives us a good lesson. I was speaking about divorce a moment ago. In article 122 of the Russian constitution I find the following:
Women in the U.S.S.R. are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life.
To hear that, one would think that women in Russia are free to do what women can do in our country, work when they feel like working outside their homes, remain at home when their families are large in order to take care of them in the proper way. The article continues:
The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured to women by granting them an equal right with men to work-
In giving women equal rights with men to work they do not say that their government very often forces women to go to work in whatever place the government thinks best in order to further the aims of the communist organization or communist country. The article goes on:
[DOT]-payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, by state protection of the " interests of mother and child, by state aid to mothers of large families and unmarried mothers...
They believe in that now because of the costly experiences they have had as a result of their laxity with regard to divorce. I think I am in order in speaking that way because I want to prove that a weak spot of our democracy is the disruption of families through too easy divorce.
I think that there is another angle from which we can look at the amendment presently before the house. I refer to the constitutional side of the question which I believe was stated very plainly yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he took part in the debate. I have a newspaper clipping from the Montreal Gazette dealing with a forum in which the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), Mr. Paul Sauriol of Montreal, editorial staff member of the Montreal French daily newspaper Le Devoir, and others took part. The newspaper article refers to Mr. Sauriol's part in the discussion as follows:
Mr. Sauriol argued that eleven bills of rights would be needed if all personal rights were to be covered. He was against amending the Canadian constitution to give jurisdiction to the federal government in the field of human rights. Such an amendment would be "contrary not only to the


letter but to the spirit of our constitution, because the principal function of the provinces is to protect the personal rights of their citizens."
Our government did more than that. At the United Nations a firm stahd was taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs as to the constitutional aspect of the question when he stated:
I wish to make it clear here, that in regard to any rights which are defined in this document, the federal government of Canada does not intend to invade other rights which are also important to the people of Canada. By this I mean the rights of the provinces under our federal constitution. We believe that the rights set forth in this declaration are operative and well protected in Canada. We shall continue to develop and maintain these rights, but we shall do so within the framework of our constitution which assigns jurisdiction in regard to a number of important questions to the legislatures of our provinces. Because of these various reservations on details in the draft declaration, the Canadian delegation abstained when the declaration as a whole was put to the vote in the committee.
It is plainly to be seen that the government has respected the constitutional side of the whole question. I said that the matter was very clearly put by the Prime Minister in the words he uttered at Loyola college the other day, and I repeat that everyone should keep those words in mind. We should be conscious of the constitutional situation in our minds, our hearts and our souls. I should like to read a few excerpts from a book by Monsignor Sheen, whom I have been following for many years and who is in my opinion a good author on this subject. The excerpt I am about to read will answer the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he said that all churches had admitted that the cause of communism was the poor economic situation. Monsignor Sheen has this to say:
Neither is communism to be met altogether on the false assumption that if economic conditions were bettered we would do away with communism. Communism is not just an economic system: it is a philosophy of life. Conditions were very good in the garden of Eden, but Lucifer started his revolt there. Bad economic situations are only a condition but never a cause of communism.
Monsignor Sheen also said:
There is much misunderstanding concerning what a nation and a people should do to combat communism. Immediately there come to mind four ways in which it should not be done. Communism should not be met by vituperation, name-calling, and personal hate. Hate is like a seed-it grows. By hating communists we advance communism, for communism grows in discord just as disease thrives in dirt.
He also said:
Finally, we are not to think that we are called on to be God's agents to execute vindictive judgment on the communists, but to see the whole world as seated in sin. When a germ infects a body, it generally does not so localize itself that a surgeon can take out a quart of blood and liquidate the evil. The germs are so diffused through the body that the whole body must be saved. So, too, there is

Communist Activities in Canada
evil throughout the world; communism is one of its principal symptoms. The Christian point of view is to see ourselves as part of a guilty world. In fact, the more innocent we are, the more we are to feel that guilt, because then we better recognize our oneness with our fellow men. Our Lord was innocent, but He took on Himself the sins of the world.
I hope I am not tiring hon. members by these quotations. I think they are necessary. On education Monsignor Sheen has this to say:
Since communists infiltrate their philosophy through lies and myth9, it is imperative that people in a democracy be properly informed concerning not only the errors of its ideology, but also the great truths of human nature, history and religion. Schools are in operation only about six hours a day, most of them closing at three in the afternoon. It would seem in the present crisis advisable to use the later afternoon and evening hours for adult education.
If we want to fight communism we should do so intelligently. I hear some members of the opposition vituperating the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) when he does not want to give all the information they would like to have. Sometimes we should not ask for too much information, for the same thing could happen here that happened in the United States. I have here a clipping from the Toronto Daily Star, a very good newspaper, of March 2, 1950.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Gauthier: It is a good newspaper, and I would say the same of the Globe and Mail. The heading is "Better than spy in F.B.I. is N.Y. trial to Russians," and the article goes on:
With no more effort than it takes to sit in court and listen, the Russians are learning these days about how the federal bureau of investigation hunts spies-Russian or otherwise.
What use do the G-men make of wire-tapping?
What sort of secret records does the F.B.I. keep on spy suspects?
How much does the F.B.I. know about the activities of known or suspected soviet agents in the United States?
Then it continues:
Miss Coplon, a former justice department employee, and Gubitchev, a soviet engineer, formerly employed by the United Nations, are accused of conspiring here to transmit U.S. secrets to Russia.
Yesterday, for example, extracts from thirty-four F.B.I. data slips figured in the evidence. These
were supposed to be secret. Miss Coplon is accused of copying them without permission. They never reached the Russians-but the Russians know about them now. They are in the record.
That happened just because those conducting the inquiry were seeking too much information from the F.B.I. That is what we may do when we ask the Minister of National Defence to divulge too much information in the house; we may give very good weapons to those who are trying to destroy us.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe the best way to fight communism is to follow, to believe and to live up to the words uttered by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent); to lead our own Christian lives and live by our own moral standards; to try to keep those standards up and not bring them down. If we must fight them, let us do so with belief in God. I think that is the only way, not with too-radical measures. Let us put our credo right in the face of the communist credo, and I am sure at last we will win the war.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, since I was the first member of this house to recommend that the Canadian government officially recognize Russia diplomatically, in 1941, I feel that I should speak on this amendment. Since it is almost six o'clock, however, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will go into committee of ways and means and take up the budget resolutions. On Thursdays and Fridays we go into ways and means without question put. If those resolutions are dealt with we shall take up two resolutions on the order paper, one in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce providing for an additional vice-president of the national research council, and the other in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs concerning allowances, which was under consideration some time ago.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
2149
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 4, 1950