1952-05-21

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Mallhew MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) presented the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table the report on the administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952. This is the English copy. 'The French copy will be ready in a few days.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys if the report on the operations of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, which he has just tabled, will be available in quantity for distribution among the members before the second reading of the bill is proceeded with?


George Prudham: I am informed that it is now coming off the press, and should be ready within the next couple of days for distribution.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
2.	If so, was the contract on a cost plus basis, and what was the cost?
3.	Did the contract include the clearing andi cutting of lumber on this area?
4.	If so, how much lumber and pulpwood was cut,,, and what credit did the government receive for-the same?
Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The contract is on a cost plus fixed fee basis in the total amount of $2,600,000, of which $119,000 represents the fixed fee.'
3.	Yes.
4.	Approximately 75 cords of wood have been cut. The contractor is using the wood to meet his fuel requirements. So far, none of the wood has been sold but if any is sold the government will be credited with the proceeds.



TORONTO ISLANDS


Mr. Hees:: 1.	Has the government received a report from the engineer sent to investigate the damage caused by flooding and erosion to the Toronto islands?
2.	If so, what is the recommendation of the deterioration?protective works to prevent further


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1 and 2. Matter under investigation.
GRANTING OF CONSUMER CREDITS BY BANKS Mr. Brown (Essex West):
1 are cnartered banks in Canada in any way restricted in the granting of credits to vendors of household furniture, household appliances, motor cars, electrica! equipment or other consumer goods?
2.	If so, in what way?	s


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 243, to incorporate the Great Eastern Insurance Company.-Mr. Macnaughton.
Bill No. 244, respecting the Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Darroch.


Mr. Brooks:: 1. Did the Department of National Defence or any other government department issue contracts for a development project at St. Margarets, near Chatham airport, Chatham, New Brunswick?



ELEVATOR COMPANIES-GRAIN HANDLED FOR WHEAT BOARD

Mr. Wright:: "ha',af the names 0* the elevator companies who handled gram for the wheat board, during the five-year pool?
2. How many elevators did each such company ha,ve,: <a>
country elevators; (b) terminal elevators?
3 What was the amount of grain handled by each company for the wheat board, during the five-year pool?	6
4. What was the amount handled for the wheat board by each of these companies, for the crop year 1950-51?	*


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Speaker, I am told this question cannot be answered for two reasons: One

Questions
is that the information asked for in Nos. 3 and 4 is not available from the privately-owned elevators, and there is objection to giving the answer for publicly-owned elevators since that answer would disclose the competitive position of each elevator company. I ask that the question be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.



INDIANS ON RESERVES


Mr. Wright:: 1.	Is it the custom of the Department of Health and Welfare to pay children's allowances in cash directly to Indian mothers on reserves?
2.	If not, how are such allowances paid?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	In 86-4 per cent Indian cases, family allowances are paid directly to Indian mothers.
2.	In the remaining cases, allowances are paid either to the Indian agency trust account (2-3 per cent) or in kind (11-3 per cent).



TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS, ETC.    QUESTIONING OF OFFENDERS REGARDING RACIAL ORIGIN

Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	In apprehending motorists for minor traffic infractions do members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police question the offender concerning his racial origin?
2.	If so, is this a general practice in connection with all minor legal infractions, and for what purpose is the information needed?


Mr. Garson:: I shall answer this question orally. The answer to question No. 1 is no.
Question No. 2 is answered by No. 1.



UTILIZATION OF BITUMINOUS SANDS

Mr. Nickle:: What progress has been made over the past year by scientists working under the direction of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys in matters related to the bituminous sands of northeastern Alberta, with particular reference to economic mining of the sands, separation of bitumen from the sand, and processing of bitumen into usable products, and any other progress towards utilization of the bituminous sands?


George Prudham: The question asked relates to the work during the past year of the scientists of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys on the problems of utilizing the bituminous sands of Alberta. In this period the scientists have designed, installed and operated a small low-pressure hydrogenation plant and in their experiments have successfully removed the high sulphur content from gas oil derived from bitumen. The gas oil is a field product that would be distilled from bitumen derived by either the cold-water or hot-water method of separating the bitumen from the sands

and it is necessary to design a further step or process in which sulphur is removed before the oil, which would otherwise be very corrosive and unacceptable, is pipelined to refineries. The application of hydrogenation provides one of the important fundamental answers required by industry and Mr. S. M. Blair, the technical consultant employed by the Alberta government. This work on hydrogenation is being pursued intensively to obtain proper data for its commercial application and when put into practice there would be important by-product recovery of sulphur, a mineral in very short supply.
During the year the mines branch of the department has also proceeded intensively with the obtaining of equipment and its installation in a laboratory designed for extensive fundamental research in hydrogenation at variable pressures up to an extreme high pressure of 20,000 pounds per square inch. This plant will work on the Alberta bitumen problem and it may be that the eventual most economic utilization of the tar sands for production of gasoline and other high-grade fuels will involve a wider use of the hydrogenation process than its mere application to sulphur removal.
One of the laboratories has also been engaged in fundamental studies of the constitution of bitumen and throughout the year the federal scientists have been in close consultation .and collaboration with the technical consultant of the Alberta government. At the symposium on the bituminous sands held in Edmonton last September, which was largely attended by representatives of the oil industry, the department was represented by its director general of scientific services, Dr. George S. Hume, who is a leading oil geologist and by a group of scientists from the federal mines branch. These scientists took a leading part in the conference by their presentation of papers on the work the dominion government has carried out to assist exploitation of the bituminous or oil sand resources of Alberta.
It is necessary to a proper understanding of the present work to have some background information. Following many years of work by mines branch on surface exploration of the deposits and on preliminary studies of uses for the bitumen, the dominion government in 1942 embarked on a project to definitely find workable deposits for their oil content and to determine the practicability of producing gasoline and high-grade fuels. This program on the one hand consisted of extensive drilling. A method had to be found which would properly sample the deposits at depth and when successful

Questions
core-drilling had been accomplished the method was applied over extensive areas. This work during 1942 to 1947 produced the first information on which actual exploitation of the deposits could be based. Its most important finding was the location in the vicinity of the Mildred-Ruth lakes, 20 miles north of Fort McMurrav, of a deposit of better grade sands containing, in an area of four and a half square miles, 900 million barrels of oil or sufficient to operate a twenty thousand barrel per day oil plant for more than one hundred years.
Concurrently with starting the drilling for workable deposits the federal scientists and engineers joined efforts on the economic aspects of exploiting the oil sands with Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada Limited and Abasand Oils Limited, the latter the only organization with a plant for separation operations.
Oil froth separated from the sands was shipped to Universal Oil Products Company in Chicago and pilot plant tests there gave the first definite information on the possibilities of the bituminous sands for producing standard commercial petroleum products. It was still necessary to develop an efficient method for separating the very heavy oil from the sands and a field process to remove its heavy characteristics and sulphur.
The Abasand Oils Limited plant was rebuilt with federal aid and tests were made of the McClave hot-water process. Before the plant was destroyed accidentally by fire in 1945 a start had been made at developing a cold-water process which was later fully developed by test runs in a pilot plant installed at the mines branch in Ottawa, which plant was also used to develop means for reducing the heavy oil to a light gas oil.
Thus the scientists of the department have been engaged in a consecutive, co-ordinated investigation designed to assist the oil industry and the Alberta government in determining the best and most practicable means of utilizing the oil in the bituminous sands and through the current work is providing an answer to the problem of how to remove sulphur from the intermediate gas-oil product.


Mr. Mulch:: 1.	$7,837 a month during 1951.
2.	Yes, on annual competitive tender.
3.	Nelson Laundries Ltd., 2300 Cambie St., Vancouver.
4.	$170 a month during last six months of 1951.
5.	Partly, and fair compensation is negotiated.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has a proposed circular letter No. 19 been sent by the unemployment insurance commission to (a) the regional advisory committees; (b) the local advisory committees?
2.	IE so, to how many of each of said committees was the said letter sent?
3.	From how many (a) regional committees; (b) local committees, have replies to the said proposed circular letter been received?
4.	How many of these replies from (a) regional committees; (b) local committees, constitute (i) approval; (ii) disapproval; (iii) otherwise, of the terms of the said proposed circular letter?
5.	Will the criticisms of any regional or local committees be given consideration by the unemployment insurance commission before any circular letter No. 19 is officially distributed?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	(a) Yes, (b) yes.
2.	5 regional committees and 67 local committees.
3.	(a) 3 (2 committees asked for extension of date for reply), (b) 22.
4.	(a) (i) 2 committees, (ii) 1 committee, (iii) 2 committees (those requesting extension), (b) (i) 19 committees, (ii) 3 committees, (iii) others will consider question at May meetings.
5.	Yes.



TEXTILES


Mr. Catherwood:: 1.	What was the value in dollars of all textiles and materials ured in the manufacture of textiles, imported into Canada from all countries in the first four months of 1951?
2.	What was the value in dollars of the same importations for the first four months of 1952?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1 and 2.



SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL


Mr. Goode:: 1.	What is the average monthly cost of laundering for Shaughnessy hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia?
2.	Is this work done by contract?
3.	If so, who does the work?
4.	What is the monthly average loss of linen at this hospital?
5.	Does the loss originate at the laundry firm?
Imports of fibres, textiles and textile products
Month
January
February
March
April

**
** not yet available.

Prisons and Reformatories Act QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN



COBOURG, ONT., ORDNANCE DEPOT

Mr. Fraser:: 1.	From what individual or individuals was the site of the proposed ordnance depot at Cobourg, Ontario, bought?
2.	What is (a) the total acreage; (b) the price paid for each parcel of land, and to whom paid?
3.	Were tenders called for the construction of this ordnance building?
4.	If so (a) how many tenders were received; (b) what is the amount of the accepted tender?
5.	Is the tender on a cost-plus basis?
6.	If so, what is the estimated cost and terms of contract?
7.	Does this amount also include cost of draining property?
8.	If not, what is the estimated cost of draining same, and who pays for it?
9.	How many running feet of concrete drain or sewer tile are being used, showing (a) different sizes of tile; (b) cost price laid down on the job of each type and size of concrete tile used?
10.	Is any other type of drainage tile being used on this job? If so, what footage of each type?
11.	What is the total length of storm drain being laid?
12.	Is the concrete tile being laid on a concrete base? If so, what is the cost of this base?
13.	Does the government pay extra for this work, or is it included in the contractor's tender for the ordnance building?
14.	What is the estimated total cost of architect's fees for this building?
15.	How much of the architect's fees, if any, has been paid to date?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Eudes:: For a copy of all correspondence and agreements between the government of Canada or any member thereof, and the conference of Canadian universities, and/or provincial authorities; also for a copy of all orders in council and regulations, relating to federal aid to universities, since June 30, 1951.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Return tabled.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Poulioi:: For a copy of the by-laws passed by the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway Company in virtue of chapter 172 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927.
He said: May I say one word please, Mr. Speaker?
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a correction in the French version of this motion. The English text mentions "by-laws", while in the French text the word "statuts" is used. It is the word "reglements" which should have been used. I do not wish to have the statutes of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways; what I am asking for is their by-laws.

(Text):


Mr. Chevrier:: I wonder if the hon. member would allow this motion to stand?
Motion stands.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Carl Olof Nickle: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister approved a western army command order for a seven-day work week placed in effect last Monday, under which all ranks of the Princess Patricia's based at Calgary have been required to move from their homes into barracks, these including many Korean war veterans who have already spent a year separated from their wives and families.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I have had no notice of the question, but I shall be glad to look into the matter.
[DOT] [DOT]



PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 63, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the motion is carried, Mr. Speaker, I should like to hear a statement from the minister about the rehabilitation of prisoners.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that I can state more comprehensively or succinctly the purpose of the bill than the manner in which it is set out in the explanatory note. As the hon. member for Temiscouata has just implied this bill will work towards the rehabilitation of prisoners.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Ticket of leave.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I have a question on section 1 of the bill. I am aware, of course, that the language of the proposed new section 159A quite closely parallels the language of the present section 107. May I ask the minister, as a matter of practice, what type of person is authorized by the minister, in that behalf, in the language of line 18-which is also in section 107 of the present act-to participate in the issuance of those licences.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have not had any occasion to sign any such authorization within the last couple of years, but the whole process, which is one of actual remission, would be

handled in our remissions branch. The applications are so infrequent they would be pretty well on an ad hoc basis.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How extensively has the licensing power been issued in the case of the Good Shepherd reformatory, say in the last year or two? Has the licensing power been quite extensively used?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not very extensively. I have not the number of cases, but I can get that information for the hon. member.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: I should like to ask a question or two about this interprovincial home for young women. I take it that is a government institution?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is an intergovernmental institution of the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.


William Joseph Browne: Are there any other institutions besides the one mentioned in the bill to which this act will apply?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes.


William Joseph Browne: Is this the first alteration since the revised statutes of 1927?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There are no other institutions to which this particular bill will apply, but there are a number of other institutions to which the act which this bill amends applies.


William Joseph Browne: The same principle?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The same principle.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 196, to amend the Supreme Court Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there is one point that I would ask the Minister of Justice to clear up for the house on this short bill. Reference is made in the explanatory note to the fact that the amendment is made in pursuance of a recommendation made by the judges of the supreme court. May I ask if the recommendation or the request of the judges of the supreme court was for precisely the two changes which the bill provides for in the calendar of the court?
Interpretation Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to my hon. friend's question is yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 197, to amend the Interpretation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Reports to parliament.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering what gave rise to this particular bill. One can easily see the object of it, but have there been any cases where the effect of the law as it stands at present would have required the tabling of any report at two sessions of parliament in the same year?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. If my hon. friend will examine, for example, the Department of Insurance Act, 1932, chapter 45, section 9, he will find that it reads as follows:
The minister shall lay before parliament within thirty days after the commencement of each session thereof the annual report of the superintendent made to the minister under the provisions of each of the acts specified in the schedule to this act.
A literal interpretation of that section would require, I think, an annual filing of the report in question and of all subsequent reports.
Another example is in the Penitentiary Act, 1939, chapter 6, section 14, which provides:
The minister shall submit to the governor in council an annual report upon the penitentiaries, prisons and other institutions under his control, to be laid before both houses of parliament within the first twenty-one days of each session thereof . . .
These are just drafting errors which it is the purpose of this present bill to cure in all cases in which they have occurred. This bill will require the tabling, as I think was the intention of parliament, of each of these reports in one session, namely the session which takes place next after their preparation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps it is not unreasonable to observe that the matter out of which
2424	HOUSE OF
Supplementary Extradition Convention this bill arises draws attention to the desirability of our not having any more second sessions in any year.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask the minister whether any other cases of need for amending the Interpretation Act have been brought to his attention? It is a long while since this act was amended. We at times run into experiences which make us wonder what certain words mean. Have any representations been made to the minister for amendments to clarify the meaning of some of the words defined in this act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If by his question my hon. friend means to ask whether there are other statutes of Canada in which there are sections relating to the tabling of annual reports, similar to those which I have just quoted, the answer would be yes. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, for example, contains another of such sections. But if by his question he means to ask whether other examples have been brought to my attention of other drafting errors in other statutes, the answer is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not quite what I mean. What I meant was this. Are there in the Interpretation Act any definitions which have turned out to be ambiguous to such an extent that they have required amending or is this the only amendment that seems to be required in the Interpretation Act, out of current experience?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is the only case which has been brought to my attention or of which I know at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTARY CONVENTION BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND CANADA SIGNED ON OCTOBER 26, 1951 Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the supplementary extradition convention between the United States of America and Canada, signed at Ottawa on October 26, 1951, amending the supplementary extradition convention between the United States of America and Her Britannic Majesty, signed at Washington on December 13, 1900, and that this house do approve the same.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make several brief comments on this extradition treaty. I have no doubt that it will receive general (Mr. Fleming.]

support in the house. Nevertheless I think there are two or three observations which may perhaps usefully be made.
Those who sat in the house in 1945 will not soon forget the extradition convention of that time which was submitted to this house for ratification and was then referred by the house to the standing committee on external affairs for study and review. In the committee that extradition convention was found to be one unworthy of the support of the house. The committee held extensive hearings during the course of which they heard many representations, all of them adverse to the convention.
The distinguishing feature of that particular extradition convention was a long list of extraditable offences which were created, which had no counterpart in the criminal law of Canada, and which would in effect have created, for the purpose of extradition to the United States, offences which were then not offences under the criminal law of Canada.
I think it is worth observing, sir, that the standing committee on external affairs at that time rendered an important public service in providing an opportunity for many persons and organizations interested in the subject to make their representations to a public body or organ of this House of Commons; and in arriving at the conclusion that the committee could not recommend the ratification of that convention I consider the committee also rendered an important and useful service.
Now, sir, the convention before the house at the present time is a very different-looking document from that of 1945. To that extent it is a substantial improvement. Actually it purports to introduce two amendments only in section 11 of the extradition convention between Canada and the United States of December 13, 1900. These two amendments, sir, do have counterparts in the criminal law of this country. We were assured in the committee that the proposed new section 11A of the convention has its counterpart in sections 404	and 444	of	the	Criminal
Code, and the proposed new section 11B has its counterpart in section 209 of the Criminal Code.
Sir, there has been a good deal of publicity given to negotiations leading up to this convention; and	it may	not	be	amiss topoint out the limitations on the scope of this convention. Considerable publicity has been given to the operation of certain Canadian stock salesmen who use the mails or the telegraph or the	telephone	in	the	course oftheir efforts to sell stocks	to	United States
buyers, and whose communications, in the course of those efforts, pass the international boundary.
I think there are some sections of the public who have come to the conclusion that this extradition [DOT] convention will have the effect of making it an extraditable offence to convey certain forms of representations in connection with the sale of stock by Canadian salesmen speaking in Canada over the telephone to persons in the United States, or sending telegrams from Canadian points to persons resident in the United States. At its meeting on May 13, the committee on external affairs had an opportunity of clarifying the effect of this convention. And may I again point out, sir, that as in 1945, and as on a good many other occasions, the standing committee on external affairs has rendered an important and useful service in connection with this convention.
The matter was clarified to this extent that when Mr. Varcoe, the deputy minister of justice, was asked questions with reference to the limitations of the convention, the matter was summed up finally in this question and answer at page 283 of the proceedings of the committee on external affairs on May 13. I asked this question:
It is quite clear that representations made across the border by someone in Canada by telephone, telegraph, radio or television would not be within the scope of this treaty and would not be an extraditable offence?


Mr.   Varcoe@: I would think it would not.
And, sir, that answer, as well as answers given to other questions in the course of the hearing in the committee, make it quite clear that the only form in which misrepresentations become the occasion of the commission of an extraditable offence is when those communications are committed to the post office, and when the United States mails, in the course of transportation of those written communications, are used in the course of forwarding or delivery.
There is one other matter, sir, that did interest the committee, and it does interest a number of Canadian dealers in securities, who are carrying on a quite legitimate and proper business. I am sure hon. members are aware of the difficulties that have confronted a great many issues, oftentimes small issues, of Canadian securities at the hands of the securities exchange commission of the United States, whose standards are exceedingly rigid, and were written with regard to the fact that in the United States the securities business relates more-at least to a greater extent than in Canada-to the securities of established enterprises, and much less than in Canada to the securities of corporations and syndicates issued in the course of
Supplementary Extradition Convention pioneer development work, or as we speak of it, enterprises involving the use of risk capital.
There has been under discussion for some time a proposal on the part of the securities exchange commission of the United States for easing its requirements with reference to small issues of stock which Canadian corporations may desire to market in the United States. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), when appearing before the committee, very properly drew attention to this fact, and to the prospect held out of some alleviation for smaller Canadian stock issues proposed to be marketed in the United States of the very rigid requirements now imposed on all such issues by the securities exchange commission.
At page 286 of the proceedings the minister had this to say:


Hon.   Mr. Garson@: Mr. Chairman, I do not want
unduly to influence the decision of the committee at this stage, but I think that I should point out that the brokers who are in business of raising this money in Canada were rather interested in getting a short term of registration in the United States, and the chairman of the American Securities Commission giving evidence in the United States the other day concerning this supplementary extradition convention with Canada said:
"I think the committee should be aware of the fact that the commission is giving consideration to providing some kind of short form registration for small Canadian offerings, and upon ratification of this treaty by both nations would probably proceed to do something along those lines."
I think it would be very much in the interests of the investment industry here that this should be approved as soon as we can, and then they could proceed to get this short-form of registration which is so much desired by the investment fraternity in Canada.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that observation was very properly put before the committee by the Minister of Justice, and in further questions and answers the minister did give assurance to the committee that the government would make representations in this behalf in order that this desirable easing of the strict requirements of the securities exchange commission should be brought about in so far as the marketing of small issues of Canadian stocks and securities in the United States is concerned.
Sir, there is one final matter I should like to mention. It does not arise directly out of the terms of the convention; nevertheless I think it is a proper matter for comment in the discussion of this measure at the present stage.
There are some who, when hearing of sales of Canadian stocks to Americans, under conditions of high pressure, leap to the conclusion that there are many Canadians engaged in this nefarious form of the sale of securities, and who seek to put all, or at
2426	HOUSE OF
Supplementary Extradition Convention least many, Canadians who are engaged in the securities business in the same category.
I wish to enter an emphatic protest against conclusions of that kind because, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, they are not warranted. Those engaged in Canada in the securities business are, in the overwhelming majority, people who are honest, and who are carrying on a perfectly legitimate and useful trade. Simply that there happen to be a few renegades, or high-pressure artists, is no reason whatever for heaping opprobrium and suspicion upon the great majority of those who are properly engaged in this very legitimate and necessary business.
And, sir, there is one aspect of the subject in which in the past the actions taken by certain American governmental officers have been highly improper. It is not unusual for Canadians in recent times to receive from officials of the American government or state governments, subpoenas delivered in Canada, if you please, to appear before commissions or officials in the United States, and to bring with them the books and records of Canadian corporations. Situations of that kind have been brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).
I know he has intervened in such cases, pointing out to the American authorities that their writ does not run in Canada, and that when officers of any American government, whether federal or state, undertake to issue orders to Canadians in Canada either to appear personally before American boards or commissions or to produce books and records in that country, they have no right to do so.
Think of the position in which Canadians have been placed by the issuance of such unauthorized orders and subpoenas, when they are served in Canada without any authority or warrant. When Canadians have chosen to ignore these unauthorized subpoenas and orders, as they are quite entitled to do, it has meant that if at any time in the future they enter the United States they have thereby rendered themselves subject to detention.
That has been a high-handed action on the part of many American governmental officers against which I think it is quite proper in this place to protest very strongly.
It is not to be supposed that these subpoenas and orders have been issued simply in the case of Canadian salesmen who have been attempting to sell their securities by high-pressure methods. Far from it. In many cases these have been served upon Canadians only by registered mail, Canadians who are carrying on a perfectly legitimate business here in Canada, and without any offence under the laws of either Canada or the United States.


I hope Canadians will not be subjected to high-handed and unauthorized interference of this kind. It should be made clear to all American governmental authorities that the American writ does not run in Canada. The only writ that runs in Canada is the writ of Canada or of any province.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, as a witness who appeared before the committee on external affairs, I should like to deal with some points of law connected with this resolution, and to express my appreciation of the attitude shown by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, not only in the speech he has just delivered in this chamber but in the constructive analysis he made of the resolution when it was before the external affairs committee.
With the greater part of what he has said today, and what he said then, I find myself in agreement. I think it should be rather difficult to imagine any argument more convincing for the support of this resolution than the one he has just made. There are however one or two points he raised about which I should like to make a few observations, in order to complete the picture for those members who are not lawyers.
He has said that on previous occasions the effort of the United States government has been to secure an extradition treaty covering these matters, in which the principle of single criminality would be observed. That is to say, the United States government previously wished to extradite Canadian citizens from Canada to the United States to stand trial there for an offence which was a crime under American law but not under Canadian law.
Thanks to the stand taken by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), that position of the American government was resisted, with the result that we have here an extradition treaty in which the principle of double criminality has been strictly observed. Under this treaty no Canadian can be taken from Canada under an extradition order until application has been made under the treaty to a Canadian court, and until lawyers representing the United States government can convince that Canadian court that there is evidence establishing a prima facie case against such Canadian under the law in Canada which is analogous to the American law for an alleged breach of which the Canadian citizen would be tried if extradited to the United States. In that way a Canadian citizen has ample protection against being extradited, unless and until a Canadian court has first been satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against him here.

When the Canadian citizen is extradited to the United States he can there be charged under the American analogue of the law in Canada under which the extradition application in the Canadian court was made. If he is found guilty, of course he has to bear punishment. If on the other hand he is acquitted there he must be released and cannot be charged in the United States for the breach of any other law of that country.
It can be seen from this that no legitimate businessman, who has not been guilty of an offence against the laws either of Canada or of the United States, stands in any appreciable jeopardy of being extradited under this treaty. Indeed the interests of all the legitimate investment dealers have been greatly served by the conclusion of this treaty because, as the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said, one of the things which the legitimate businessmen in Canada have long desired in order to get American risk capital for investment in this country has been some method whereby it would be possible to put Canadian stock issues upon the market in the United States without going through the very expensive and cumbersome regulations of the securities exchange commission of that country.
The rule in that country is that the securities exchange commission have the discretionary power to exempt issues not exceeding $300,000 in any one year of United States companies provided that they complete the short form application only. That is a much more simple and economical method than having to comply with the very stringent regulations of the securities exchange commission. The position which the United States authorities have taken consistently up until the present time is that they are not desirous of extending the privilege of selling stock issues in that country under the short-form registration unless they are satisfied that they have available in their law in connection with the sale of such issues sanctions against fraud or other such forms of irregularity. As they put it, the existence of these broad sanctions is the premise upon which the grants of exemption from full compliance with their long-form regulations by the securities exchange commission is based. The securities exchange commission has taken the position in the United States in relation to domestic stock issues, and it takes the same position with regard to foreign stock issues, that under the law they could not properly extend exemptions to any situation where these sanctions against fraud did not exist. They obviously do not exist in the case of an offerer of stock residing in a country with which the United States
Supplementary Extradition Convention does not have an extradition treaty with a reasonable fraud coverage. The United States contention has been that the fraud coverage which prevailed formerly under the treaty of 1900 was not sufficiently wide to cover them in the case of short-form issues.
It follows from that by a process of logic, which they have not attempted to deny or resist, that if such treaty should be agreed upon, and especially if the requisite sanctions against fraud could be made possible, the commission would give sympathetic consideration to such a request for a short-form registration, and would endeavour to work out for legitimate business in Canada a method by which they could have recourse to this short-form registration in the United States. This is a privilege which I think I am safe in saying is considered of great value by Canadian promoters and investment dealers.
The quotation which the hon. member for Eglinton referred to in his remarks of a few minutes ago as having been used by myself before our external affairs committee was from a statement by commissioner R. B. McEntire, of the securities exchange commission in the United States. He made the following statement in March of this year before the committee on foreign relations of the United States Senate:
I think the committee should be aware of the fact that the commission is giving consideration to providing some kind of short-form registration for small Canadian offerings, and upon ratification of this treaty by both nations would probably proceed to do something along those lines.
It seems to me that this is going as far as any civil servant could go under the circumstances under which this statement was made. For these reasons, especially the ones which the hon. member for Eglinton has so eloquently put forward, I think it is distinctly in the interests of the legitimate businessmen of Canada and of Canada itself- it is against only the interests of fraudulent promoters and stock salesmen-that we should pass this resolution as soon as possible and thereby endeavour to secure this short-form registration privilege to which we attach considerable value.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words on this resolution. A rather extraordinary thing happened in the 1945 committee. The report throwing out the treaty was not introduced by the government, it was spoken to by myself. The objections to that treaty were four in number and I think it would be of interest to state at this time what those objections were and why that previous treaty was so unacceptable. I should like to quote from

Supplementary Extradition Convention my remarks as they appear on page 3711 of Hansard of December 17, 1945, as follows:
Basically the principles which the treaty violated were these. First, it did away with the time-honoured and, I believe, historic principle of dual criminality.
And again:
The second fundamental point which the committee felt was detrimental to the acceptance of this instrument was that the treaty by its various clauses greatly enlarged the offences for which extradition might be sought . . .
And again:
The third reason-and this was an important one -was that we were not satisfied that the treaty and protocol as drawn were not ultra vires of this parliament with regard to the rights of property and civil rights as vested in the provinces under the British North America Act.
Finally:
Then-and this is not a legal point; it is perhaps a physical point-we felt that the restrictive clauses which were mentioned in the treaty, subsections 26, 31, 32, article III, article IX and article XII, section 1 of the treaty, would definitely restrict the opening up of our great natural resources.
I went on to state the reasons why the treaty was thrown out. That treaty completely abrogated many of the sovereign rights of Canada. It was just about as bad a treaty as could be imagined. I think this instrument is acceptable because it overcomes these four cardinal sins, if I can so term them. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has said, it opens up the possibility of short-form registration privileges being granted to Canadians.
I submit that that is most important. A normal prospectus under the S.E.C. may run anywhere from fifty to one hundred pages of small type and be so involved and so labyrinthine in character as to defy most lawyers getting to the bottom of its meaning. As a matter of fact, I have heard it said that they are made as complicated, as long and as involved as possible so that the actual facts can be submerged at times in a tidal wave of verbiage. They defeat their own ends.
I see no objection to this treaty. From what the minister has said, I think it will be of assistance to the legitimate Canadian businessman. First of all, a prima facie case must be made out that the law of Canada has been contravened and broken. Second, and this also is of great importance, if extradition is granted the person so extradited cannot be charged for any other offence. As a matter of fact that was one of the great dangers of the first instrument in that, if extradition was asked for, one state after another could then bring subsequent charges for other offences which might entail the ruination of the person so extradited or his incarceration for almost the rest of his natural

life. Having said that, I believe that this is a step that should be taken. I think it will assist development in many ways. Many of our development companies start off in a very small way. There are chances of a small investment, particularly in the mining and oil fields, leading to very great profits, but that type of investment is of necessity hazardous and extremely speculative. Nevertheless it is an essential part of the economy of Canada, and to restrict it in any way would in my opinion seriously jeopardize the continued prosperity of our industry.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. B, Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 210, to provide for carrying into effect the treaty of peace between Canada and Japan.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I made a short statement on this bill, its principles and its purposes, at the resolution' stage. I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything now to what I said then. It is a bill, as its title implies, to authorize the government to take the necessary measures to implement the treaty which has already been ratified by the government. If second reading is given now it would be my suggestion that the bill be sent to the standing committee on external affairs where its clauses can be given detailed examination. Possibly some other questions which are not directly related to the bill could be discussed before that committee. On that understanding, and if it should commend itself to the house that the bill should go to the standing committee on external affairs, I do not propose to say anything more at this stage.
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, there is no particular reason why there should be an extended debate on the bill. It was arranged previously that after second reading it would be sent, as the minister indicated, to the standing committee on external affairs for consideration there. During discussions in the external affairs committee, and also in the debate in this house on a prior occasion relating to the treaty of peace and the protocol, I raised the question of having not only the provisions of Bill No. 210, which is now under consideration, sent to the committee for attention but also the treaty of peace and the protocol.
I fancy that the bill now under debate will

not furnish as much meat for discussion in the committee as will the treaty and the protocol.
I am hopeful that when we give second reading to the bill it will be the understanding of the house that in the proceedings of the standing committee on external affairs the treaty, the protocol and the bill will be open for full discussion, and that at the appropriate meetings of the external affairs committee the minister will arrange to have witnesses available for examination who will be competent to give information with respect to various points which I imagine come to one's mind in connection with the Japanese treaty. There are matters of trade, immigration and so on that were mentioned in the previous debate. We are hopeful that they can be fully covered and that witnesses will be able to give such information to the committee as may be in the possession of the government. I do not think there is any point in debating the motion for second reading in view of the fact that the real discussion will take place in the external affairs committee.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, we too appreciate the fact that this bill is to be referred to the standing committee on external affairs. We are also grateful for the suggestion of the minister that the terms of reference when the bill reaches that committee may actually be wider than the bill itself. Even so, and even though it seems generally agreed that there is no need for an extended debate at this time, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) avail himself of the opportunity to close the debate and in so doing answer one question that I should like to put to him.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke at the resolution stage he indicated the constitutional position that makes necessary a bill like this, and in particular gave us the contrast between our position in Canada and that of the United States. In o'her words, the bill simply gives to the government, or technically speaking the governor in council, the power to do anything that is necessary arising out of the treaty, and also the power to provide for penalties for any infractions of any regulations made by the governor in council on that basis. Could the minister indicate to us, if he chooses to reply at the end of this debate, any examples of the kind of regulations that might have to be made? Likewise, could he give us any examples of the things that might be infringed and lead to penalties of one kind or another as provided in the bill?
Treaty of Peace (Japan) Act


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions in my mind about the bill, particularly sections 3 and 4. However, since the minister has indicated that the bill will be submitted to the standing committee on external affairs for more detailed study, I will leave those questions until the bill is before the standing committee. I should like to join with others in expressing the hope that the terms of reference will be wide enough to permit some examination of the protocol and the treaty. As a matter of fact I am quite certain that, when we get before the committee, members will find it difficult to confine themselves strictly to a discussion of the terms of the bill. I am sure they will find themselves referring at different stages to the treaty and the various things that arise out of it. I should like to have some assurance from the minister that the terms of reference will be fairly wide. Our experience in external affairs has been, I think, quite a happy and profitable one. In my judgment it would not aid to confine the discussion on a bill such as this to such a narrow orbit that we would not have the same happy and profitable discussion in the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I should like to deal very briefly with one or two of the points that have been raised. Of course, it is our understanding that there should be a fairly wide discussion of this whole question in the standing committee. I do not believe there will be any effort on anyone's part to restrict the discussion to the terms of this particular bill, because when we discussed these matters in the standing committee before, it was understood that there would be an occasion for a further examination of the treaty of peace, even though the treaty had already been ratified. At that time there was need for speedy action in order to bring the treaty into effect, and that was appreciated by the members of the committee. It was also understood by them that there would be an opportunity for further discussion. If it is submitted to the committee, this bill will provide that opportunity.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked me if I could indicate generally the kind of regulation which might be issued under this enabling legislation. He mentioned the question of penalties. We will have at the committee meetings, Mr. Speaker, legal, economic and other experts who will be able to go into this in considerable detail. Provision for penalties

Treaty of Peace (Japan) Act has been embodied in the legislation in case penalties may be required. But up to the present, for instance under the analogous legislation implementing the treaties of peace with Italy and certain other countries which was passed a couple of years ago, it has been found necessary to issue only two orders in council and no penalties have been required in the light of those orders in council. However, as this bill is designed to make effective upon Canadian nationals certain obligations contracted by the government of Canada and approved in due course, I hope, by the parliament of Canada, it is usual in such cases to provide for a penalty clause against emergencies.
As to the type of regulation which may be required, I might give two examples which would indicate to the hon. member what may be necessary under the treaty of peace with Japan. Article 14(a) of the peace treaty, for instance, exempts certain property from the general provision mentioned in an earlier part of the treaty, that all Japanese property should be turned over to the Canadian government and could be utilized for the payment of compensation. Exempted from that clause is certain diplomatic property. Regulations may be required to make that exemption effective in our domestic legislation. This bill to implement the peace treaty may, in effect, bind Canadians, and for that purpose certain orders in council may be required.
To take another example this time from the treaty of peace with Italy, a lump sum settlement was negotiated to clear up all our claims against Italy and all Italian claims against us. Order in council P.C. 5818 of November 6, 1951, was issued under the Treaties of Peace (Italy, Roumania, Hungary and Finland) Act of 1948 and it was known as the "war claims (Italy) settlement regulations". It contained a provision by which the payment to Canada by Italy of the agreed lump sum constituted satisfaction by Italy of its obligations to Canada and to Canadian nationals. The effect of this provision would be to prevent a Canadian from suing in a Canadian court to recover a war claim. A similar kind of regulation may, in the future, be required under this proposed legislation if it becomes effective. That is the type of thing that may be done under an order in council, and when this matter is discussed before the standing committee on external affairs, other detailed examples can be given by the experts who will be present.


Solon Earl Low: Perhaps the minister could
answer this question. I presume that at no

time are regulations passed by order in council which would not be ordinarily enforceable within the country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. No such regulations could be passed, nor could such regulations be passed under this act as would infringe on provincial jurisdiction, for instance. This bill is no assertion of a constitutional principle of any kind. It is merely the authority from parliament to the government to do by order in council certain things which parliament might do by specific legislation if it so desired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There would have to be a basis for any such regulation in the treaty of peace?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the treaty itself, that is right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the ratification by Canada of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide as signed by Canada on November 28, 1949, and that this house do approve the same.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: should like to say a few words about this resolution. It is much too important to let pass without some comment. Here is an attempt to have the conscience of the world express itself through law. We should remember that it is only an attempt, and nothing more. There are no teeth in this legislation by which we could make it operative, but at least it is a start to something better. There are those who profess to scorn attempts such as this which they say are merely gestures. But a gesture perhaps has its importance in the world today. Furthermore what is looked upon as merely illegal can eventually become immoral.
I remember reading in history of the situation which prevailed in the United Kingdom over a hundred years ago when it was regarded as right and proper that women and children should work for ten and twelve hours a day in the coal mines. Some people were horrified at what was happening. Eventually legislation was passed prohibiting this practice. It was then illegal, and has now become immoral as well as illegal. In time I hope that the intent of this resolution

will be accepted throughout the whole world, and be just as illegal as it is immoral. There can be no question at all that the people of this country support the resolution. This I would say is especially true of one particular group, organized labour, for genocide has not been practised only against people of certain religious views or certain ethnic groups. It has been practiced against social groups, and modern history relates that the working class groups in Europe have suffered under this form of mass murder.
The ratification of the resolution will mean that the crime of genocide is always before us. That is a good thing, for our memories are short. I wonder how many of even my generation remember the crimes which were perpetrated at the beginning of the century against the Armenians. Most of us have forgotten them. I wonder how many remember the crimes which were perpetrated against the Ukrainian people in soviet Russia in the early thirties when, through deliberate policy of the men in the Kremlin, millions of Ukrainians were exterminated in what the Russians conceived to be their national interest. I have heard the number put as low as 6 million and I have heard it placed as high as 15 million; but I think at least 8 million Ukrainians were exterminated in the early part of the thirties. That was a crime which was not perhaps internationally illegal then but which we now hope to make illegal.
We remember, after the war, when tens of thousands of Poles and Lithuanians were exterminated, again as acts of policy on the part of the Russians. We remember what happened to the Sudeten Germans as a group. I think the world particularly remembers the horrors which happened to the Jewish people under nazi Germany when some 6 or 7 million of them were exterminated, again in the name of national policy.
The question, however, is whether the next generation will remember these horrible things. Many of them will forget; but I am certain that in my constituency they will remember, for 50 per cent of the people whom I represent have been affected or afflicted in one way or another by this wretched crime of genocide. Not only does genocide destroy bodies but, what is just as bad, it can destroy minds. If it can destroy minds, it can destroy cultures; and wherever a culture is lost to the world, to that extent all of us are impoverished.
Even though this legislation be nothing more than a pious aspiration just now, nevertheless in the long run, as it becomes accepted, we can hope that it will raise general standards throughout the world; for today- and this applies not only to those who are
Genocide Convention
behind the iron curtain-there are groups so harassed that they can think only of survival. They have time to think of nothing else. If we can make this resolution become operative throughout the world, these groups will be given some security so they can devote their energies to building up a better life.
We are glad to have before us this resolution to ratify the convention. We are glad to see it ratified, but ratification by 32 nations, Mr. Speaker, is not enough. It must be ratified by all countries in the world and I should like to see it done-although at the moment it is impossible-without any reservation whatsoever. Meanwhile those who refuse to ratify this convention must stand condemned by the world.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is one that received considerable attention in the external affairs committee a few days ago. One of the members of the official opposition, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), has given a great deal of close and sympathetic attention and study to this convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. I greatly regret that he had to leave Ottawa last night on extremely urgent public business, in order to go somewhere in the vicinity of Oshawa.


An hon. Member:: Where?


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps some may think the business was made more urgent by the fact that the minister himself has not been here for the last couple of days. I hope neither one of them has been engaged in anything that indicates a question of political genocide. In any event, I wanted to indicate to the minister why I am taking the part I am taking in connection with this debate today.
I have followed closely the discussions in the external affairs committee, and I think everyone has been of the opinion that Canada, in becoming a signatory to the convention on genocide, found herself in the position of agreeing to something which was, in a sense, half a loaf rather than a whole one. I think we all realize that even though we ratify the convention on genocide, it goes only part way in executing what Canadians generally would like to see accomplished and achieved in this matter.
I suppose there is no other country in the world whose people are more quickly outraged by news of this kind of mass extermination of groups. It is so foreign to the Canadian way of thinking that perhaps we are apt sometimes to look at it from afar. But there are in Canada many people whose relatives have suffered under this kind of persecution. Even though the convention does not go

Genocide Convention
nearly as far as Canadians would like to see it go, so far as its effect is concerned, I think it would have been a great mistake if Canada had not taken her stand. I think that we in Canada were wise, both at the United Nations and also here in the external affairs committee, to take our stand against this kind of international outlawry and try to do our part as best we can to establish some measure of law, order and simple justice for people the world over.
That is one of the reasons we support this convention. It is not as effective as it might be. As members of the house and of the external affairs committee will agree, it has grave limitations. Nevertheless it at least provides a moral if not a legal sanction with respect to this type of injustice wherever it occurs. I should like, however, to point out that with respect to the ratification of this convention, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) a moment ago, only some 32 out of the 60 members of the United Nations have endorsed it so far as their parliaments are concerned, or have signed the convention itself.
Strangely enough, the three so-called leading powers in the world have not so far become actual ratifying parties to the convention. The United States congress has not yet come to any conclusion with respect to this convention. There have been debates there of a rather extensive nature in connection with it, but so far the ratification has not been completed. In addition to that, the United Kingdom has not only not ratified the convention, but has not become a signatory to it. Then there is the further fact that the soviet Union-as one perhaps might now be led to expect in matters of this kind-in ratifying and signing the convention put in so many joker clauses by way of exempting their country from its operation that it is not of great importance so far as that nation is concerned today. It seems to me that behind the iron curtain is perhaps the very place where we need this law applied, and the iron curtain countries evidently have taken the position that they are going to have so many reservations in the convention that it will not matter a great deal to them whether it is law or not. That is not a very satisfactory arrangement from Canada's point of view. It is a disappointing situation because surely we have gone far enough in our thinking and in our actions that all the nations of the world ought to be able at least to come to one conclusion, namely that it is wrong and unjust for this kind of international crime to go unpunished, as it apparently has in the past.
[Mr. Graydon.l
It sometimes makes one despair of world opinion when he realizes that we seem to be able to go only such a short way in trying to rid the world of such a menace as this. However, in the committee on external affairs the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) entered into a discussion with other hon. members and with the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At that time I understood a point had been reached in connection with that part of the convention which, in defining what genocide means in subsection (b) of article II, mentions causing bodily or mental harm to members of a group, where some question arose with respect to the words "mental harm." I understood that was a matter which had engaged the attention not only of the United States congress but of some other nations as well, because of the varying degrees of interpretation which have been placed upon these words.
Perhaps there is no great reason why we should not ratify it even with those words in it, but I would ask the minister, when he closes this debate, to take into consideration such undertaking as the parliamentary assistant gave in the committee so it will be made clear to parliament and to the world just what the Canadian parliament means when it endorses the convention with these two words included in it.
I have no very strong feelings myself with regard to the inclusion of those words. In my mind it is only a question of how we can make the most effective and workable convention and have it ratified by this parliament, so it will go forward to the world as a message that after all the Canadian people are taking this means, perhaps a feeble one, but nevertheless the only means that seems to be at hand at the moment, to tell the world that this country is shocked, startled and concerned over crimes of this kind which have been perpetrated in the past, and that it is not going to stand for any repetition in the days that lie ahead.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly glad of the opportunity which is presented here for me to discuss the genocide convention, which I consider of great importance. I feel sure the house will unanimously endorse the convention. The world now and then requires reminders of acts which it would rather forget. The memory of man being what it is, it is necessary from time to time to repeat some vital matters that perhaps would better be left unsaid.
This convention on genocide strikes at the very root of the problem which is facing the world today. It is a problem bound up not only with the interests of persons but

with the interests of groups throughout the length and breadth of the world, those who hold different religious views and different political points of view. It is particularly bound up with the possibility of peace throughout the world.
The United Nations, which exists for the specific purpose of trying to get the nations of the world to iron out their difficulties is, in my opinion, one of the most effective methods of eventually destroying the possibility of war. The general assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1948, adopted a convention to outlaw genocide. That convention was accepted unanimously.
Genocide is mass murder. It is a modern name for an old crime. It means the destruction of whole groups of people just because they belong to particular groups. The group may be radical or national, or it may be religious. It may be a particular ethnical or racial group. The destruction may take various forms. Genocide has destroyed some 20 million persons in the last fifty years. I quote these figures with great humility. In the first half of the twentieth century alone the crime of genocide was perpetrated against the following human groups: Armenians, 10,000 at the turn of the century; Jews, several hundred thousand in 1902 and 1905 in Russia and in other European countries; Armenians, 1,200,000 in 1915 and 1916; Greeks, about 500,000 in Smyrna in 1922; Ukrainians, millions of them since the occupation of their territory by the Soviet; Jews, under the nazis, 6 million; Serbs, 800,000 in the so-called independent state of Croatia; Poles, 3 million since 1939: Lithuanians, 600,000 since 1941 and still continuing; Latvians, 400,000 since 1941 and still continuing; Estonians, between a quarter and a third of the entire population since 1941 and still continuing.
I am not going to read the rest. You have a fair idea of what the record indicates has happened almost within our own lifetime. In modern days the nazis developed their technique which was use particularly against racial and religious groups, til-Jews, and against the national linguistic group, the Poles.
The crime of genocide is not new; it has been practised under different names since the destruction of Carthage by the Romans. Throughout the middle ages there were the Jewish pogroms, the mass killings in various countries of Europe. In the last century, the mass killings of Armenians and again in this century the persecution of the Armenians in the Ottoman empire were horrible examples.
Genocide Convention
Individuals, groups, yes, nations, and Canada amongst them, were often aroused to protest against these massacres, but nothing more was done about it. It was the systematic brutalities practised by the nazis that shocked the conscience of the twentieth century. The twentieth century conscience refused to accept the dictum that the horrible atrocities they committed on these people were matters within domestic jurisdiction. So the world decided to concern itself. It was recognized at Nuremberg that there were crimes against humanity, that these crimes must be punished by law, and they were so punished. It is true that at Nuremberg those charged and convicted were tried on a basis of retroactive law. There was no law in existence which specifically covered these crimes. I believe the world is still firmly of the opinion that no injustice was done at that time.
It became clear that international law would have to be developed to deal with the international crime of genocide. There are already examples of laws for dealing with certain international crimes: Slave trade, illegal production and trade in narcotics, piracy, trade in women and children. International conventions have been signed on these crimes, and anyone guilty of them can be tried and punished not only in his own country but in whatever country he escapes to, provided that country has adhered to the convention. This convention is merely extending an international convention to genocide.
We in this country have a long and distinguished record for being in the forefront of humanitarian efforts. Canada was one of those countries that officially protested against the treatment of the Jews and others by the nazis. Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, as he was then known, was the prime minister who boldly and courageously spoke for Canada in words that rang throughout the world as a clarion call for freedom and justice when he protested against the treatment the nazis were dealing out to these people. It follows that the prevention of genocide is in line with the overwhelming opinion and feeling of the people of Canada. It has great and deep appeal to many of our minority groups.
I speak with some knowledge. I have seen some of the things with which this convention deals. I have seen the victims of these happenings. I have met and known men and women whose whole families have been sent to the gas chambers and who have seen them tortured and afflicted. I have seen the gas chambers. That kind of thing we cannot tolerate.
I recall the first time I saw a gas chamber. I wondered what it was, but I soon found out, Today, years later, I still shudder as

Genocide Convention
I recall vividly those gas chambers. It was a horrifying experience long remembered which burns and sears the memory. It was in the early days of 1945, when we were moving across Europe rather quickly, with the Germans in retreat. I remember the first camp in which there was a gas chamber. I recall particularly the meticulous records the nazis kept. Nothing was left to chance. Nothing was hidden. The records were perfect. On one side of the ledger the heading was Juden; on the other side were inscribed other unfortunate persons of all nationalities. The side of the ledger headed Juden was by far the largest. But there were far too many on the other side, also.
So I am particularly happy today to know that this House of Commons will make a decision, which I have already indicated in my opinion will be unanimous, to endorse this convention, which is in keeping with our position as one of the leaders of the middle nations. We are giving leadership, as the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has pointed out, both to the United States and the United Kingdom, neither of which has yet ratified the convention, though neither is ever likely to be charged with the offence of genocide. Sometimes even that is doubtful, in view of the germ charges made by the communists and their stooges, which are false, dishonest and even worse than that. But it indicates that these matters have an importance beyond their immediate perspective.
This genocide convention is a step against jungle law. It is a recognition of the wrongs which have been inflicted on helpless people. It is a proclamation that the rights of man do not belong to the strong alone, or to the privileged few. For that reason this document or any other document cannot compensate for the loss suffered, not merely by the innocent victims but by the world.
We are all responsible in some measure for the terrible persecutions of our time, which I indicated to the house a few moments ago. Those of us who stand by and permit these crimes to be committed cannot escape some portion of the guilt. So this genocide convention today is an admission and a recognition by us of our responsibility, and our solemn pledge that the sins of the past will not be allowed to repeat themselves. At the same time we must keep one inescapable fact in mind: No country and no association of countries can guarantee international law and morality by means of a convention alone. As we well know, the last thirty years are strewn with the remains of burned-out and abandoned treaties and conventions. They were framed in a spirit of the highest idealism. By means of them the free nations
[Mr. Croll.l
sought to hold in check the black flood of barbarism which threatened, as it does today, to engulf the world.
The nations failed twice in our lifetime to restrain naked force by peaceful means. We learned, to our bitter loss, that a nation which signs a convention can also repudiate it. That is why we cannot let this genocide convention, or any international convention, lull us into a false sense of security. It is not an insurance policy against the future. And yet it can be a real weight to throw into the moral balance of the world. It carries the seeds of a new order for humanity. But those seeds may be barren, unless the free nations cultivate the ground for them.
I think the house has been told on another occasion that the free world has not been sleeping since 1945. Step by step we are building what may yet emerge as a new social order in the international sphere. Let me remind the house of UNRRA, the United Nations, the Marshall plan, ERP, NATO, the Colombo plan, and today the genocide convention. All these are steps along the road to international justice and morality.
I agree with those people who say we cannot impose democracy and liberty upon the beaten and backward nations of the world. We must first build them up to our level economically and socially. We must continue to strike at the causes of injustice, so that in time a convention like this should not be necessary.
In the light of past and present history it can be stated that this convention has been overdue for centuries. The genocide convention is now law-binding upon all nations that ratify the convention. It signifies humanity's determination once and for all to substitute the law of civilized society for that of the jungle.
I am happy to join with the house in endorsing this convention. We are thus giving leadership to those nations with whom we are usually associated in matters such as this. I pay tribute to the minister of external affairs for his efforts at the United Nations and his persistence and insistence that this government and this parliament ratify this convention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) has already indicated the heartfelt support which we accord to this motion for the adoption of the convention for the prevention of the crime of genocide. This is an occasion of really great importance in the history of mankind as we endeavour to move forward from what the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) referred

to as the law of the jungle to the light of full civilization. With the hon. member for Spadina we all hope the day will come when conventions like this may no longer be necessary, but we all recognize that by agreeing to a convention like this we are helping to sharpen the conscience of the world against what is referred to as the crime of genocide.
One of the reasons I felt I should like to say a few words at this time is that some of us feel that we must concern ourselves not only with the overt crime of genocide, against which we stand in all its forms; we should also take a stand at every possible opportunity against certain other practices which are inconsistent with a stand against the crime of genocide but which can be just as injurious and serious to the groups affected.
The definition of the crime of genocide in the convention we are now given the opportunity to endorse includes not only the overt destruction of racial and other groups as such, but any action injurious to a group or to a section of a group, or calculated to bring mental harm to any such group. I am reminded on this occasion of the words well known to all of us in the sermon on the mount. We remember how the Master suggested that the commandment of old, thou shalt not kill, did not mean in His view that people should only refrain from the overt act of murder; it meant that they should also refrain from hating their brothers or being angry with them in ways equally harmful. So I suggest that when things happen in other countries which we do not like, for example in South Africa today, and against which we might feel very strongly, we should feel equally strongly about any act of discrimination against any groups within our own country.
We need not go into the details of the form and type of discrimination that still takes place. I listened, as the house did, to the sad story given by the hon. member for Spadina and the many blots there have been on the story of mankind. The incidents he mentioned stand out and horrify us, whether they come from ancient times or from the days of the nazis. I hope this attempt to sharpen the conscience of the world, this attempt to sharpen our own conscience, will make us all feel equally sad at the realization that there are forms of discrimination against various groups, ethnic, racial, religious, social and economic, still being practised within our own country.
We who support and vote for this convention today, if we are to be consistent with our
Genocide Convention
vote, should take a stand at every opportunity against discrimination of any kind. If we are to see the day, if we are to have fulfilled that hope expressed by the previous speaker, when a convention like this may no longer be necessary, it is not only necessary that there be progress toward that ideal in other parts of the world; it is necessary that progress be made toward that same ideal in our own country.
I rose simply to express once again our wholehearted approval of this motion for the ratification of the convention to prevent the crime of genocide, and to express at the same time the hope that we will take all the steps we can in this country to do away with tire forms of discrimination that still exist against various minorities and groups within our land.


Mr. L. D. Cresiohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, knowing the temperament of this parliament and of the Canadian people at large, I am not surprised to hear from every section of the house that there is unanimity of opinion in connection with the resolution submitted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) for the ratification of the genocide convention. This resolution not only merits but calls for our every consideration because there are still clouds on the international horizon that threaten to create explosive situations which will produce horrible cases of mass killings which under the definition of the convention would be genocide.
Some countries unfortunately are still actively obsessed with a lust for power and domination. Other countries flagrantly ignore all human considerations and international regulations. Not only are they encouraging conditions which will produce genocide in the future, but they are actually committing the crime of genocide almost continuously. These conditions no doubt press upon the conscience of the free and peace-loving peoples of the world, the urgency to address themselves vigorously to safeguarding the common objectives, not only to prevent genocide but to help to make this world a better place in which to live.
The proposed legislation in my humble opinion is a definite step forward in that direction and will no doubt be unanimously approved by this parliament. We will then, Mr. Speaker, be able to take great pride in the fact that, in this, as well as in other similar international proposals, our country will be in the vanguard in setting an example for the rest of the world to follow.
It is perhaps necessary that in considering this legislation we should examine for a few moments the comparatively new expression not heretofore commonly known to the general

Genocide Convention
public, but which is now referred to as the crime of genocide, so we may better grasp the full significance and importance of ratifying this convention.
The term "genocide", originating as it does from two Latin words, means simply "the destruction of a group of people for no other reason than the fact that they belong to that particular group", which fact has already been so ably mentioned by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). The definition itself is found in article II of the convention. It reads:
In the present convention genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:
(a)	killing members of the group;
(b)	causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c)	deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d)	imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e)	forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The diabolic reason for the slaughter may be a fanatical surge of racial, national or religious emotions; or it may be purely political; or it may be for reasons wholly unknown; or, as in most cases, it is committed without any reason whatsoever. The destruction may take the form of massacres, mass executions, starvation, restricting the birth rate, sterilization, segregation of the sexes, or the destruction of special characteristics of the group by various means.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the summarized and simple meaning of genocide; and the convention, by its own language in the preamble, "seeks to liberate mankind from this odious scourge."
As I had occasion to say during a previous debate in the house, the crime of genocide, although not known by that name, is not new in world history. Long before Carthage was destroyed by the Romans the crime of genocide had been committed. The Pharaohs of Egypt were wantonly guilty of the crime. The Roman destruction of religious groups in the lions' arena is a poignant and painful example of genocide. The Spanish inquisition, the massacre of St. Bartholomew's day, are examples of a crime which long should have been outlawed.
This horrible crime was committed not only in ancient days, or during the middle ages, as has been so fully described, but what is very sad is the fact that the crime has been frequently committed during our own lifetime. Many of our contemporaries witnessed the wanton massacres of the Armenians by the Ottoman empire on several occasions and the massacre of Christian Assyrians in Iraq, as
[Mr. Crestohl.l
well as the long list of victims already mentioned. More recently, we have witnessed the Ethiopian massacres by Mussolini, the Chinese massacres by Japan and the Jewish massacres by the nazis. Acts such as these throughout the centuries have left black pages in our history books. We search the records in vain for some action by world leadership to prevent the commission of acts of genocide or to punish the guilty.
It is of record, though, that not only in the past, but even quite recently, civilized peoples did not altogether condone the brutalities of those guilty of genocide. They never failed piously to utter protests, hold some meetings, offer some prayers, and a few foreign governments even showed some courage by sending diplomatic notes. Nothing more direct or more vigorous was ever done.
Under the guise of its being a matter of domestic jurisdiction, these crimes were repeatedly committed while civilization stood aghast and shouted "shame", but unfortunately did nothing more.
Human beings are normally disturbed by a calamity in which one or more persons are killed. The degree of shock and distress is increasingly accentuated by the number of fellow human beings who are accidentally killed. Imagine, therefore, Mr. Speaker, the frightful shudder that goes through a person when he hears of wanton mass murder involving over ten million innocent victims. It is no secret, and it has already been mentioned several times today in the house, that modern civilization cringes in shame when we hear of crematoria, mass graves, gas chambers and other such hideous implements of murder.
The studied, scientific and systematic brutalities of the nazis shocked the conscience of the twentieth century. It required an upheaval such as this, almost a volcanic violation of human sensibilities, to shake and shame the decent world into seeking means more vigorous than gasps, vocal protests and pious diplomatic notes, to prevent the commission of such crimes in the future. Is it, therefore, not a natural consequence that modern civilization should press for the creation of international machinery to prevent a repetition of these acts? The genocide convention is for the time being a partial answer to this anguished demand.
It is in my humble opinion not merely the product of international statesmen or the wisdom of their cool and calculated thinking. It is rather an outcry from the grass root level of human beings whose emotions have been violated and are not tempered by delicate, legal, diplomatic or international niceties.

The call for a genocide convention is urgently being pressed for and supported by the most important religious, labour, veteran and civic groups in the leading countries of the world. In the United States, for example, the convention is being pleaded for and supported by every humanitarian organization in the country. I have before me a list of over sixty of these international organizations, the most recognized and most important in the country. To indicate the types of these organizations I should like to mention only a few. They are: the national conference of Christians and Jews, the Catholic association for international peace, the federated council of churches of Christ in America, the American Federation of Labour, the congress of industrial organizations, the American Legion, the world Jewish congress, the American veterans' committee, the general federation of women's clubs, the young women's Christian associations of America, the Catholic association for international peace and countless others.
In our own country, and in other countries, similar groups have likewise urged the adoption and the ratification of the genocide convention. It is today a universal outcry, and at long last it is being seriously dealt with.
The theory of non-intervention in a matter of so-called domestic jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, to which I referred a few moments ago, is no longer tenable with respect to crimes which are universally acknowledged as inhuman and immoral, and this notwithstanding the fact that traditionally criminal law has been considered as an expression of the right of a state to define and punish acts, which in its judgment are contrary to public order within its borders. International law of modern times has recognized certain crimes which it declared to be international, and regards them as directed against public order not of any one given country, but as against public order of the entire family of nations. The crime of piracy, for example, the crime of international slave trade, the illegal production of and trade in narcotics, white slavery and similar crimes belong to that category. These are the subject matter of various charters, conventions, treaties and pacts under the United Nations Organization, and are governed by international law.
Within the past number of years we have been forcibly reminded by the Nuremberg judgments that to this category of international crimes also belong war crimes and crimes against humanity. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, with the advance of civilization, the crime of genocide should be similarly classi-
Genocide Convention
fled and outlawed. Our country should, of course, be amongst the first to support this view.
Someone once very appropriately said that important lessons are frequently learned from great sacrifices. Martyrdom in history is perhaps the most formidable example we have to prove that the sacrifices of these saintly men and women helped pave the road for the creation and preservation of those principles that civilization holds dear today. Men and women were burned at the stake, tortured to death, and gave up their lives rather than swerve from their beliefs and their convictions. We have indeed learned great lessons from them.
I should like to refer for a few moments to sacrifices made to a degree heretofore unheard of in the annals of history, and which were not made in the dim past but during the past two decades, in our own lifetime. Let us see, Mr. Speaker, what lessons, if any, we have learned from these sacrifices, whether millions will have died in vain without contemporary history having reaped any lessons from these sacrifices.
Before and after 1939 the democratic countries witnessed the commission of the crime of genocide both in Ethiopia by Mussolini and in Germany by Hitler. Civilization stood idly by. Perhaps it gasped in sympathy; nevertheless I repeat it stood idly by. This should never occur again. If, for example, the nations of the world had seriously warned Mussolini or Hitler that what they were doing would be internationally challenged, and their countries would be isolated from the rest of the world by the imposition of international sanctions, we might not only have prevented the most flagrant case of genocide in history but we might have been able to avert world war II. What the world suffered for not doing so could almost, in the judgment of devout believers, be a lesson in retribution.
If, for example, sanctions had been threatened and effectively imposed between 1934 and 1939, the world would have known where dictatorships were going. In my judgment it is doubtful whether, with the complete isolation of these bandits early enough in their careers of crime, they would have been able to secure the materials and supplies to create their weapons for conquest, which they were otherwise able to build up between 1934 and 1939.
It is therefore my respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, that the convention should go further than it does. By its present terms it threatens trial and punishment of the guilty, but refers rather weakly in article VII to the possibility of arresting the commission of the crimes once they are commenced. By

Genocide Convention
the time the perpetrators can be brought to trial, it may be too late. Some vigorous provisions should be included which would prevent the commission of the crimes or stop them once they are started.
The security council of the United Nations, which is continually in session, should most cautiously scrutinize every act or manoeuvre which might lead to the suspicion that genocide is being committed or is about to be committed. They should be given adequate power and authority to call for an immediate cessation of those acts which may lead to, or in fact may be, genocide. Moreover the council should be given express authority, without the necessity of waiting for a meeting of the plenary session of the general assembly, to threaten effective international sanctions if their directives and orders are disobeyed. This would be a direct attempt to prevent acts of genocide, and to arrest them if started.
I respectfully urge our representatives to the United Nations to deal with this matter just as soon as the appropriate opportunity presents itself. Such action would be consistent with our country's views in matters of this kind and would, I am certain, be hailed by all the freedom-loving peoples of the world.
The United Nations has, for example, an opportunity today to prevent the crime of genocide which is being committed in several countries. During the past twenty-four months Iraq has been, and is now, in the process of committing acts which are genocide under the interpretation of the convention. Dangerous indications appear in a number of other countries, and unless the United Nations Organization takes the situation firmly in hand, acts of mass murder by violence or by means set forth in the definition of genocide may be committed in the countries of North Africa, Egypt, Iran, Aden, South Africa, Greece, North and South Korea, in Yugoslavia and the Baltic states.
A short time ago Greek reds kidnapped 28,000 Greek children and took them behind the iron curtain, solely because of their nationality. Chinese reds and North Koreans have slaughtered whole groups of clergymen and children because of their religion. In the Baltic states more than a million persons have been killed or exiled because of their national origin. These acts, Mr. Speaker, are preambles to genocide, if they are not indeed genocide according to the convention. Such horrors need little enhancement to ripen into the planned destruction of an entire group.
Preventive provisions in the convention, in my opinion, are therefore even more important than punitive provisions. I am hopeful that this phase will be given active consideration by international statesmen.

Some preventive steps may be found in articles III and IV of the convention. Article III sets forth that the following acts should be punishable: (a) genocide; (b) conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) attempt to commit genocide; (e) complicity in genocide. Article IV sets forth that persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III should be punishable, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. This is perhaps the first time in the history of international affairs, Mr. Speaker, that a warning is proclaimed that constitutionally responsible rulers are no longer immune, even in their own domains, from the responsibility for committing crimes. In other words the myth in international law that "the king can do no wrong" has been substantially modified.
No responsible head of a state will be able to commit with impunity acts which are being labelled by this convention as crimes against civilization.
I should like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the machinery for implementing the convention as set out in article VI appears to be, in my judgment, a little vague. I now read from the convention itself:
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the state in the territory where the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those contracting parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
It is, of course, not difficult to conceive that a criminal court of any particular state might have a problem in trying its ruler, leader, statesmen or anyone else. Domestic courts can unfortunately be tampered with or neutralized by legislation, as we see in the case of South Africa today.
A procedure much more definite and much more independent is therefore required if clause VI is to have any effective meaning. Consequently I direct attention in clause VI to the following words: "such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction" and so forth. This wording implies the use of an international penal tribunal.
I understand that the creation of an international criminal court has recently been recommended. I hope it will be established. The committee on international law appointed by the Canadian Bar Association has given the matter much study. This is one of the most important committees of the Canadian Bar Association, since it is composed of past presidents of the association and is presided over by Chief Justice McRuer of Ontario.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that this committee will not only recommend amendments

to our own Criminal Code to enable our courts to deal with those charged with the crime of genocide, but will also support the establishment of an international criminal court and recommend a procedure making it possible to bring before it, try and punish offenders, irrespective of their station and importance in their own country. The establishment of such a court might really put some teeth into the convention and would make of it something more than an instrument of mere wishful thinking, noble as that in itself might be.
The genocide convention, Mr. Speaker, was originally brought to the attention of the United States as early as 1946, shortly after the United Nations Organization was first convened. The convention was adopted unanimously on December 9, 1948. Its coming into force, however, was suspended until at least 20 member nations, by acts of their respective parliaments, would ratify the convention. Those ratifications were, unfortunately, rather slow in coming in. Finally on January 12, 1951, it being the ninetieth day after the twentieth instrument of ratification was deposited with the Secretary General of the United Nations in accordance with the terms of the convention, the convention was finally ratified.
Since then many more countries have ratified the convention and I believe there are at the present time some 36 nations which have approved it. Our own country was among the first to sign the original instrument, and our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is now submitting this resolution for Canada likewise to deposit with the Secretary General of the United Nations the requisite document indicating that the people and the parliament of Canada have ratified the convention which it signed on November 28, 1949. This step is consistent, as I said at the commencement of my remarks, with the high moral level of our country and the reputation which it enjoys in the eyes of the civilized peoples of the world.
This example, I hope, will now be followed by the rest of the members of the United Nations who have not yet ratified, so that the entire civilized world will not only declare its abhorrence of the crime of genocide, and condemn it, but will also declare itself ready to punish all individuals, groups and even nations who will resort to the unspeakable crime of mass murder.
I have one more point that I should like to add, Mr. Speaker, and it is this. Since our country has acquired a position of preeminence for its humanitarian views and as a fearless champion of justice, it is all the more important for our parliament to
Genocide Convention
ratify the convention, because those countries which have not yet approved it may look to us for guidance and leadership. Our hesitation to sign, or suspension of this action, will cause much eyebrow raising amongst those countries, who will wonder why Canada has not yet signed.
There have been some questions raised as to why the United States, Great Britain and other democracies have not yet adopted the necessary legislation to approve the genocide pact. There appears to be no explanation other than casual indifference, or a belief, to some extent, that the pact is not necessary, or that it may be inoperative. No reason whatsoever can justify a refusal to declare the crime of genocide repulsive to civilization. What are these delinquent countries waiting for? Have their sensibilities not yet been sufficiently violated? Or has the passing of only a few years already dimmed their revulsion at what has occurred? Surely those democracies who cling so jealously to their ideals should be the very first to vigorously urge universal condemnation of the crime of genocide. Hesitation obviously has the effect of giving encouragement to those countries which practise genocide in our own days.
I am therefore hopeful, Mr. Speaker, and sincerely pray that with the adoption of this legislation by our parliament, the necessary stimulus will be given to the rest of the democracies who have not yet approved this convention and that, in the not too distant future, twentieth century civilization will be able to record the universal condemnation of a crime that has plagued human history, and the fact that henceforth the crime of genocide will be effectively outlawed and never again practised by man.


Mr. Slick:: Before the hon. member finishes his speech, there is something to which I should like to direct his attention. I was following him as closely as I could, and I think in his speech he mentioned South Africa, with the implication that genocide was practised there. I hope that is not so. There may be racial distinctions there, but I greatly doubt whether the crime of genocide is practised. If that is implied in the hon. member's speech, I hope that he will reconsider that part of it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -I think I should say a few words on this important resolution and express the view of the government with respect to it. Before doing so, however, I should like to deny the soft impeachment of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) that

Genocide Convention
my absence from the house over the last day or two has had anything to do with what he called political genocide. Genocide, Mr. Speaker, is mass destruction or the intention to commit mass destruction. My purposes, during my absence for the last few days, have been entirely constructive.
The resolution to approve the Canadian ratification of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, as the previous speakers have pointed out, has already been considered in detail by the standing committee on external affairs and has been reported to the house without amendment. The genocide convention which is before us was the first convention to be prepared by the United Nations and opened for signature by states throughout the world. The text was unanimously adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1948. Canada's representatives at the first part of the third session of the general assembly in Paris in 1948 were among those who supported the principle that the genocide convention should receive the widest possible application. Canada signed the convention on November 28, 1949, and it came into effect on January 12,	1951, 90 days
after the deposit of twenty instruments of ratification or accession without reservation. As has been pointed out, a total of 36 states have now ratified or acceded, thirty without reservation and six, unfortunately, with reservations. The states which annexed reservations are: Bulgaria, Roumania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the Philippines. The genocide convention is important not only because of the nature of the matter with which it deals but because it is the first international convention, prepared at any time, which seeks to define an international criminal offence. This means essentially an offence to be prevented and punished by all the states which adhere to the convention and for which they may be held to account by other states.
The crime is defined in article II, which has already been read to the house. It reads:
Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such...
As it has already been done very eloquently, Mr. Speaker, I do not need to recall to the house some of the horrible examples of genocide we have had in the past, especially the recent abominable instance of the practices of the nazis during the 1930's and during the war. Their systematic and ruthless policy, designed to uproot and exterminate a whole people, the Jewish people, makes one of the most tragic chapters in the whole of human history. A glorious footnote, however, has

been written to that chapter, in the emergence and the establishment of the state of Israel.
There have been other examples. Perhaps I might read at this point a communication which indicates that genocide is not yet eradicated from the world, especially from that part of the world behind the iron curtain. This communication for obvious reasons, which will commend themselves to the house, will have to remain anonymous. It is addressed to me, and reads as follows:
My wife and I recently spent a week end in X-
X being a city in Russia.
-where we were shepherded around. An incident occurred as our train was leaving the city which I thought worthy of recording.
Our train was forced to stop a moment as we were pulling out of the station. I looked from my window and saw, six or seven tracks away, a line of cattle cars, but they were not filled with cattle; they were filled with women. There was an aperture of about a foot and a half between the sides and the roof, and from this opening peered hopelessly out the emaciated faces, framed by clawing hands, of numbers of women. There w'ere soldiers at the track side with fixed bayonets so there could be no mistaking the meaning.
It was just a moment's pause. Then our train moved on, but it was as if the corner of a curtain had been lifted, permitting a brief glance into the cesspool. Where these poor unfortunates came from, or where they were going, we can only guess -perhaps from Estonia; destination, just the east.
It is that kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that this convention, inadequate though it may be in many respects, is designed to prevent or at least to make more difficult. The human race has, we must hope, become more civilized, and the inherent rights of the individual and of minority groups have become more important; they have become protected under domestic law, particularly under the laws of democratic states. We must hope that in the future that protection under domestic law may be reinforced by international convention and international law. This convention is designed to do just that. Up to the present these rights have not been protected as a matter of international law, and I hope this convention will at least be helpful in that essential process.
The contracting states under the convention undertake to prosecute persons guilty of genocide in their own countries or, in the alternative, to surrender them to an international penal tribunal if and when such a tribunal is established. This latter obligation does not arise at once in any case or by virtue of the ratification of this treaty, since the contracting parties would also have to agree by a separate convention to accept the jurisdiction of such an international tribunal. For practical purposes, then, and particularly

because the establishment of such an international penal tribunal is problematical at this time, it may be said that the scheme of the convention is that contracting states accept genocide as an international crime and undertake to punish offenders in their own courts.
As has been pointed out, however, the convention contains one provision in article IX, which has some teeth in it, in the sense that it affords a means by which one contracting state can bring another contracting state before the international court of justice. The international court of justice-which has no jurisdiction over individuals as distinct from states, and which also has no criminal jurisdiction of any kind-would have no power to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of any person, but under this article it might give a declaratory judgment as to whether the respondent state was, in fact, carrying out its obligations generally under the convention.
The communist countries have consistently refused to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the international court of justice, and in line with this general position these countries -and also the Philippine republic-have made reservations refusing to be bound by this article.
A few countries objected to those reservations, and the objections which were made have been responsible for hesitation and some delay on the part of certain states to ratify this treaty. To clear up these difficulties the Secretary General of the United Nations asked the general assembly for a directive at its fifth session in 1950 in regard to the significance of reservations of this kind.	The assembly then, as many hon.
members know, decided to refer the question to the international court of justice, and it was hoped that the court would give an opinion which would clarify the whole situation. This hope was not, I confess, entirely realized in the event. The court by a majority decision merely stated that any state could be regarded as a party to the convention while maintaining a reservation, notwithstanding the objection of other states, if the reservation could be considered as "compatible with the objects and purposes of the convention." The court refused to state whether or not the reservations in question were "compatible," and said that this depended upon a subjective appraisal of the effect of the reservation by each state.
Therefore the decision in one sense did not carry us much farther forward. The present position then is that if Canada were now to object to the communist reservations
55704-154J
Genocide Convention
on the ground that they were in fact "incompatible" the communist countries, as well as some other countries, might maintain that they were "compatible." In these circumstances-and we gave a great deal of consideration to this difficulty-it appeared desirable to the government that Canada should now ratify the convention without reference to the reservations even though this might involve our acceptance of them by legal implication.
The language of the reservation is such that no country which has made the reservation under article IX can hale a non-reserving country on a charge under the convention before the international court of justice without the non-reserving country's consent. That is a very important consideration. The reservations made under article IX are identical, and I shall read the terms used by Bulgaria: Bulgaria does not consider as binding upon itself the provisions of article IX . . . and declares that, as regards the international court's jurisdiction . . ! Bulgaria will . . . maintain the position that in each particular case the agreement of all parties to the dispute is essential, for the submission of any particular dispute to the international court for decision.
In other words it seems to me to be clear from the wording of that reservation that Canada, for instance, could not be brought before the international court of justice on a charge of violation of the convention we are now considering, by a country like Bulgaria, which has made this reservation, without the consent of Canada itself.
The genocide convention is possibly the most important source of new international criminal law which has developed since the last war. Other sources of this law are the Nuremberg principles based upon the charter and judgments of the Nuremberg tribunal, which were formulated by the international law commission of the United Nations, and also the proposed code of offences against the peace and security of mankind, which is still under consideration in the United Nations.
Since it is desirable, I think, that there should be world-wide acceptance that genocide is a crime, and since the force of the convention as a source of international law depends upon its general acceptance by states, the conclusion may be logically drawn that it is best to have the widest possible acceptance by states of this convention as a source of law, even although there may be a refusal by some states to accept the enforcement provision in article IX.
The following question has arisen, causing some anxiety I believe in the committee, and it has been referred to today by the hon.

Genocide Convention
member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). The question is this: Is any legislation required in Canada to implement within our own borders the obligations which our country will undertake under the convention? On this important matter I should like to quote the opinion of the deputy minister of justice, to whom this was referred for an opinion. He wrote as follows:
You have asked for my opinion as to the nature of the legislation, if any, that may be required to implement the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide to which Canada will, I understand1, shortly become a signatory-
This letter, by the way, was written before we actually signed the convention, and not in connection with its consideration for ratification.
You also asked for a confirmation of your assumption that no legislation on the part of the provinces would be required to implement the convention.
Dealing with your last query first, in my view, the provinces are not required to introduce legislation to implement the provisions of a convention which relates in its entirety to criminal law.
I am further of the opinion that no legislation is required by Canada, at this time, to implement this convention. In this connection, I would direct your attention to the wording of article V of the convention. I do not think any legislation is "necessary," inasmuch as I cannot conceive of any act of commission or omission occurring in Canada as falling within the definition of the crime of genocide contained in article II of the convention, that would not be covered by the relevant section in the Criminal Code.
It was only after we received this opinion back in 1949 that we signed this convention which is now before the House of Commons for approval.
There is another point which has been of equal concern to members of the standing committee on external affairs, and which also was mentioned by the hon. member for Peel. I refer to the meaning of the words "mental harm" in subparagraph (b) of article II of the convention. This article defines the offence as I have already quoted it, and I shall repeat the definition for convenience:
Acts committed with Intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. . .
These are the governing words of the definition, and consequently they control and limit the effect of the specific list of acts which follow those governing words. The second of these listed acts reads:
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
It is the words "mental harm" which have caused some uneasiness in some minds. My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that the words "mental harm" cannot mean anything but physical injury to the mental faculties.

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who has taken a keen interest in this convention, pointed out before the standing committee on external affairs that these two words were originally introduced into the definition at the request of the Chinese delegate to the United Nations who was concerned with the practice of the Japanese of administering opium to the Chinese people as a means of weakening their resistance in the Sino-Japanese war.
Of course the administering of opium to a racial group which would involve physical injury to the mental faculties would come within the definition I have just quoted. I cannot myself conceive that mental harm can be caused to persons with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, without physical injury to the mental faculties of such persons.
I therefore suggest to the house that the use of the words "mental harm" would and should be interpreted, as a measure of both our domestic and our international responsibility, as meaning "physical injury to the mental faculties".
My attention has also been directed to another point which I think might be cleared up at this time. I refer to a decision handed down by the United States supreme court concerning the constitutional validity of a law of the state of Illinois. It concerned a statute of that state and it was not a decision on the interpretation of the genocide convention. However, the judgment did comment on the genocide convention and might have given the impression that while genocide is of course, literally, the murder of a race, by extension it could be applied to any act detrimental to the welfare of any identifiable group, whether the lines of identification are religious, racial, cultural or national, and that it might apply to crimes against such groups short of extermination and might therefore really be aimed against any concerted determined discrimination against a minority.
While I do not think any of us would condone discrimination of this kind in any way, shape or form, I think that interpretation of this convention is going too far; that is, that it could be interpreted as applying to discrimination against a minority.


Gordon Graydon: Some Canadians have taken that interpretation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not the interpretation we would give it. And while I would not have anything I say on this point interpreted as approving or condoning discrimination of this kind in any shape or form, we would

have our own way, I hope, of dealing with such discrimination. I think it would be undesirable to leave the impression that it could be brought under this convention, or that this convention could be used properly for this particular purpose.
In conclusion may I say that the possibility of the crime of genocide being committed in Canada seems to me to be extremely remote. I stress the fact that the broad purpose of this convention is to bring the law throughout the world up to the standard which I think we may say without boasting happily exists already in our own country. In approving this convention unanimously, which I hope parliament will do, we will be proclaiming throughout the world that genocide is considered by us to be a monstrous crime. We will be doing something to make it more difficult for any other country to commit that crime.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. 224, respecting the Canadian forces-Mr. Claxton-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 2-The National Defence Act.
Mr. R. O. Campney (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose last evening subclauses 2 and 3 and 17 of this section were under consideration. These subclauses were included in the bill to provide for the carrying out of Canada's commitments in the event that the Geneva conventions should be ratified by Canada. Last evening some hon. members expressed doubt as to the desirability of having such legislation passed before the decision on ratification is taken. As these subclauses would not be required unless and until the Geneva conventions have been ratified, I am instructed by the minister to ask that the bill be amended by deleting these three subclauses.
Section 6, which has not yet been reached, provides that subsections 2, 3 and 17 of section 2, to which I have just referred, shall not become effective until proclaimed by the governor in council. Of course, that would happen only in the event that the Geneva conventions were in fact ratified by Canada. For the same reasons as those which I gave in connection with the three subclauses of section 2 I am instructed by the minister to seek an amendment to the bill to delete that section.
Canadian Forces Act


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That subclauses 2 and 3 of clause 2 be deleted and subclauses 4 to 16 be renumbered as subclauses 2 to 14 and that subclause 17 of clause 2 be deleted and subclause 18 be renumbered as subclause 15;
That clause 6 and the heading thereto be deleted.


Mr. Pearkes:: I think the government is well advised in withdrawing these subclauses which proved objectionable to hon. members. The official opposition could never have agreed to having legislation placed on the statute books based on a convention which had not been ratified by this house, a convention which had been passed more than three years ago but which had not been ratified by the United Kingdom or the United States and with the terms of which hon. members were not familiar.
With the withdrawal of these objectionable subclauses the objection of the official opposition to the amendment to the National Defence Act would be removed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-The Defence Services Pension Act.
George Randolph Pearkes: When this section was under discussion during the resolution stage I directed attention to an injustice which has existed for many years in relation to junior warrant or petty officers or junior commissioned officers. I suggested that that injustice should be removed by the removal of the limitations placed upon the earnings of retired officers who find employment in the civil service. I had hoped that consideration would be given to my suggestion.
As the amendment now stands it would be possible for two or three men to retire on the same day with the same length of service and take exactly the same positions in the civil service. If one of those men was a senior officer, a brigadier or admiral, his pension would be greater than that drawn by an officer of the junior rank. If the brigadier took a position in the civil service he would be entitled to draw pay from the civil service along with his pension to the extent that the combined pay and pension did not exceed the pay of the rank which he had held at today's rates of pay and allowances.
The same thing would apply to the captain or warrant officer, but if this man took a similar position with the civil service you would have a ridiculous situation created. The senior officer would be able to draw his entire pay from the civil service as well as his entire pension because the combined

Canadian Forces Act
amounts would not reach the level of the pay and allowances for his rank, but the warrant officer or captain taking a similar position would find that he was entitled to a much smaller amount because the pay of a captain or warrant officer would be considerably less. He would draw his pay from the civil service but his pension would be reduced because the combined civil service pay and pension would exceed the pay of that particular rank at the present time.
This irregularity and injustice has existed for many years, and I had hoped that the minister would be prepared to remove it when bringing in his amendments. I hope consideration will still be given to doing this. I hope the parliamentary assistant will be able to say that the limitations have either been removed altogether or that there will be a fixed limitation which will be equitable to all ranks of retired persons. I hope the parliamentary assistant will be able to make that announcement today as well as the very satisfactory announcement he has just made concerning the other clauses. Then I would have no further objections.


Ralph Osborne Campney: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: I hoped that was coming.


Ralph Osborne Campney: At page 2195 of Hansard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked1 whether, in the case of a man who had a pension from one of the services and was later in the civil service, the pension was paid first with the balance being paid by the civil service, or whether the civil service payment came first with the balance being paid out of the pension fund. The minister said:
I am subject to correction in the answer I make because I have never had the question raised before. My view is, however, that he gets his pension from the defence services pension fund to which he has contributed. Then he would receive the balance of his pay from the department. However I should like to check on that before giving a final answer.
The matter having been checked, the minister has asked me to say that he found the opposite is the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe that is clear from the wording of the section now before us.


George Randolph Pearkes: I hope that at some future date the amendment I have suggested may be given further consideration, because I feel that the advisers whom the minister consulted were probably financial advisers rather than service officers.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sure the hon. member for Nanaimo will gather from the first remarks I made today that any representations he makes are always given consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.
Mr. Fournier, Hull (for Mr. Claxton) moved the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we would like to proceed with Bill No. 242, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. We spent a day or more on it at the resolution stage, and we hope it will not be very controversial. Then we will take up the estimates of the Department of Transport. If we are fortunate enough to complete those we will take up public works.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 22, 1952