1953-01-21

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliol (Temiscouala):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I am not touchy about changes that are made by hon. members in their speeches, and I very seldom go to the Hansard office to correct my own; but on page 1152 of Hansard of yesterday I read this:
Either they are afraid to have him-
Speaking of Mr. Currie.
-as a witness or they realize that there is not enough already in the report to justify their commitments.


Mr. Wright:: The police prosecutions have substantiated them.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is the opinion of the hon. gentleman. We may differ with him.
And so on. The Hansard office has sent me that page of the script of yesterday and the reporter, referring to Mr. Currie of whom I had spoken, had written the following:


Percy Ellis Wright: He has substantiated them.
It was changed in high and sharp penmanship-I wonder if it is the penmanship of the hon. gentleman or of his deskmate-to:
The police prosecutions have substantiated them.
I had spoken of Mr. Currie as a former brass hat, but I never said that he was a policeman, and it changes completely my remarks:
That is the opinion of the hon. gentleman. We may differ with him.
If this is going to be read by many people, and it is, I must say that the police prosecutions are to the honour of the Ministers of National Defence, and it is their best defence against all the accusations that have been brought against them.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege which the hon. member has raised, I did not go to the Hansard office. Hansard sent me the blue copy and asked me to correct it because, as indicated by the hon. member, the words that were there were not the words that I used in the house, and I made the necessary corrections here in the house on the blue copy which was sent to me by Hansard.



QUESTIONS


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1.	Have contracts been let by the government for parachutes since 1946?
2.	If so, what Individuals or companies asked for information or specifications?
3.	What individuals or companies submitted tenders for any contracts?
4.	What was the total amount of contracts let to each company for (a) man-carrying parachutes; (b) other types of parachutes?
He said: I wish to have this question dropped for redrafting.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



SUDBURY


Mr. Gauthier (Sudbury):: 1.	Has A. W. Robertson Construction Company Limited been paid for gravel used by that company on a defence construction project in the Sudbury district?
2.	If is, for what yardage of gravel has this company been paid, from July 1, 1951, to date?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yardages of gravel as follows: (a) Mr. W. T. Green, Sudbury, Ontario, 20,053-7 cubic yards; (b) Pioneer Construction Company Limited, Sudbury, Ontario, 15,104-5 cubic yards; total, 35,158-2 cubic yards.



CANNED PORK


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	At what date did the Department of Agriculture start purchasing canned pork?
2.	At what date is it proposed to terminate this purchasing?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Week ending March 15, 1952.
2.	No definite date has been set for the termination of purchasing. This will depend on market conditions, storage space, marketable surplus and other factors.



FROZEN TUNA


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Has any frozen tuna been imported to Canada from Japan, or Japanese fishing vessels?
2.	If so, what quantities were imported, during the years 1951 and 1952?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that this question refers to frozen tuna. Frozen tuna is not separately classified in

Questions
trade statistics, and for that reason it is not possible to get the information asked for.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.



SOY BEANS


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: How many bushels of soy beans were imported into Canada, during each of the months of September, October, November and December, 1952?


George James McIlraith: September, 1952	
6,482	bushelsOctober	
589,672	"November	
875,982	"December	
nofyet	available



COD FISHING EXPERIMENTS


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	Who are the owners of the vessels Edward Humby, Atlantic Rover, Marjory Beryl, Pat & Judy, and Gertrude & Ronald, employed by the federal government during 1952, in Newfoundland waters, in experimental methods of catching codfish?
2.	What is the rate of hire in each case?
3.	For what period was each vessel hired?
4.	Is it the intention of the federal government to continue to hire these vessels during 1953?


Mr. MacNaughi:: 1.	Edward Humby, G. Hemeon (Lessor); Atlantic Rover, R. W. Decker; Marjory Beryl, M. S. Taylor; Pat & Judy, J. Atkinson; Gertrude & Ronald, G. Hemeon.
2.	Edward Humby, (a); Atlantic Rover, (b); Marjory Beryl, (b); Pat & Judy, (b); Gertrude & Ronald, (b).
Rate (a) $1,350 per month for vessel and skipper, all fish or other catch to be the property of the lessor and the lessor to supply the necessary crew; (b) $1,500 per month for vessel and skipper, all fish or other catch to be the property of Her Majesty and the department to reimburse lessors for crew, not exceeding three with a maximum limit of $800 per month.
3.	Edward Humby, Jan. 1 to May 10, 1952; Atlantic Rover, June 23 to Nov. 30, 1952; Marjory Beryl, June 21 to Nov. 30, 1952; Pat & Judy, June 21 to Nov. 30, 1952; Gertrude & Ronald, July 17 to Nov. 30, 1952.
4.	The Atlantic Rover and Gertrude & Ronald have had their charters extended to cover the period January 1 to April 30. It is the intention to continue this experimental fishing during the summer and fall of 1953, but arrangements as to boats to be chartered have not yet been concluded.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE

Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many townships or parts of townships in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, were eligible for prairie farm assistance in 1952?
IMr Mcllraith.]
2.	How many farmers in each province were eligible for prairie farm assistance in 1952?
3.	What is the total payment involved in each province as a result of crop failure in 1952?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	1952 eligible townships and part townships paid to December 22, 1952, Manitoba, 5; Saskatchewan, 152; Alberta, 107; British Columbia, 3; total, 267.
2.	Manitoba, 117; Saskatchewan, 3,010; Alberta, 1,609; British Columbia, 74; total, 4,810.
3.	Manitoba, $12,595.25; Saskatchewan, $383,825.00; Alberta, $137,138.50; British Columbia, $2,761.00; total, $536,319.75



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


Mr. Courtemanche:: 1.	From whom does the unemployment insurance commission rent premises for its offices at Drummondville, Quebec?
2.	Are these premises completely heated?
3.	If not, what floor area is heated and what floor area is not?
4.	When was the lease first signed?
5.	For how many years and at what price?
6.	Was the lease renewed before the expiry of the first lease?
7.	If so, at what price?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	The Department of Public Works rents the second floor of building at 165 Marchand street, Drummondville, P.Q., from Messrs. Ernest and Ubald Grondin for the accommodation of the unemployment insurance commission.
2.	The lessors attend to the heating.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	June 15, 1949.
5.	(a) For five years, with * option to the crown to renew for one year on the same terms.
(b) $6,247.50 per annum.
6.	No, lease is still in force.
7.	Answered by No. 6.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Gillis:: 1.	What was the total coal production in Canada for the year 1952, by provinces?
2.	What was the total tonnage of coal imports from the United States to Canada in the year 1952?
3.	What was the total tonnage of imported American coal used or stockpiled by the Canadian National Railways, in (a) Ontario; (b) Quebec; (c) New Brunswick (d) Nova Scotia?
4.	What are the names of the companies in Canada who import American coal?

Labour Conditions



LUNAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many contracts for buildings or projects have been let by any department of the government other than the Department of Public Works to the Lunam Construction Company, in Saskatchewan, since January 1, 1948?
2.	What was the amount to be paid to the said company for completion of each of the said buildings or projects?
3.	How much was paid to the said company on each of the said buildings or projects?
4.	Did the said company become insolvent? If so, when?
5.	How much was owing by the said company for (a) wages; (b) materials'; (c) other services, on each of the said buildings or projects, since such insolvency?
6.	Of the amounts so owing, how much has been paid by any department of government other than the Department of Public Works?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. J. I. Helland (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith), the adjournment of the house under standing order No. 31, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the possibility of another railway strike, due to the reported break-off of negotiations, which would tie up the economy of the country and prevent the sale of millions of bushels of grain, much of which is out in the open and unprotected, in western Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Hetland), seconded by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith), has asked leave to move, under standing order 31, to adjourn the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance. The request for leave to make his motion appears to have been made at the proper time.
The hon. member has handed me a statement of the matter proposed to be discussed. The next procedure is for me to decide whether it is in order and of urgent public importance. I must say that the hon. member informed me that he would ask leave to propose a motion with respect to this matter. I realize it is a very important matter, and I have no hesitation in saying that the hon. member's proposed motion has given me some concern. In the statement handed to me the hon. member refers to a reported break-off in negotiations. The only information I have as to a break-off is what I have read in the press. I believe it would be in order if, before I proceed to make a decision, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) were to inform the house as to the present position
of negotiations. I assume that this matter is one which is in the first instance for his department. Would this procedure be agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members will agree with my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Hetland) that this is a matter of great importance. I am not going to discuss the degree of urgency of the motion, but in response to your suggestion, sir, I should like to say something as to its expediency at this time.
It is true that, overnight, I received communications from both parties in the present railway dispute, one which has come toward the end of a long series of industrial disputes between railway managements and their various classifications of organized employees. They told me that yesterday negotiations had been discontinued. But in spite of that I entertain the hope, and I am expressing that hope to the two parties, that they might continue their efforts toward a settlement in the only satisfactory way the dispute can be settled, namely, by collective bargaining and negotiations.
Just before entering the chamber today our officials told me there was a possibility this afternoon of a renewal of talks leading toward that objective. I hope most sincerely that this might be true. I know all hon. members realize how delicate and difficult is the task now before the two parties concerned in relation to all the other contracts that have been worked out. Frankly, I doubt very much whether a full-dress debate on the subject here this afternoon would help the two parties in that difficult task.
Consequently, on my undertaking that we will continue to keep in the closest possible touch with the situation, I would like to ask the hon. member for Humboldt if, for the present, he would withdraw his motion.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: In view of what the minister has said, I agree, for the time being, to withdraw the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed-
Motion withdrawn.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. E. D. Fulton (for Mr. Diefenbaker) moved:: That, in the opinion ol this house, immediate consideration should be given to the advisability of introducing a bill or declaration of rights to assure

Human Rights
amongst other rights; 1. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and of radio; 2, That habeas corpus shall not be abrogated or suspended except by parliament; 3. That no one shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, and in no case by order in council; 4. That no tribunal or commission shall have the power to compel the giving of evidence by any one who is denied counsel or other constitutional safeguards.
And that as a preliminary step the government should consider the advisability of submitting for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada the question as to the degree to which fundamental freedoms of religion, speech and of the press and the preservation of the constitutional rights of the individual are matters of federal or provincial jurisdiction.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave of the house to make a very brief statement on behalf of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I am sure hon. members will learn with regret that he has been called home because of the serious illness of his mother.
This is the second time the hon. member's motion has been called. It was first called last Monday and, for the reason I have just indicated, he was not here. If it stands again today I believe that, under the rules, it would be dropped from the order paper. Therefore, with your permission and by leave of the house I would like to move this motion on behalf of the hon. member and then move the adjournment of the debate. As I understand, under the rules the motion would then go over to "Public Bills and Orders", but would be preserved to be called when it was reached in due course under that heading. If that meets with your approval and I have the leave of the house, I should like to follow that course.


Mr. Speaker:: I presume the hon. member has the approval of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) to adopt this procedure?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I must be candid and say that owing to the sudden nature of his call home, and also the fact that the hon. member was in Toronto over the week end where he received the call, I did not have the opportunity to take up the details with him. But it occurred to me and to my colleagues as being the only way in which this motion could be preserved at all during this session. I think I know the hon. member well enough to feel that I can take the responsibility to ask that this procedure be followed.


Mr. Speaker:: The reason I brought the matter to the attention of the hon. member is that if that procedure is followed this afternoon this item will next appear under "Public Bills and Orders." I would not think that the possibility of it being reached would be very great.

It may not be any greater if the motion were dropped and restored to the order paper in the usual way. It would then appear at the foot of "Notices of Motions". However, I shall leave it entirely to the hon. member for Kamloops to say what procedure he would like to have followed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rather feel that the chances of the motion being reached if it were dropped and then restored under "Notices of Motions" would be slightly less than the chance of it being reached if it were placed at the foot of "Public Bills and Orders". In view of the great and continuing interest in this matter of the hon. member for Lake Centre I felt it would meet with the approval of the house if someone could just speak to it, move the adjournment of the debate and thus preserve it so that it will still appear on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed that the motion has been moved and has been adjourned.



OBSCENE LITERATURE


Edmund Davie Fulton: That, in the opinion of the house, the government should consider the advisability of appointing a joint committee of both houses of parliament for the purpose of studying and recommending legislation or other measures under which the growing volume of filthy literature circulating in Canada can be effectively dealt with, without at the same time improperly restricting the freedom of the press or of genuine literary or artistic expression.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in bringing this matter before the house today I feel that you and hon. members will be glad when I say that my intention is to speak for less than the length of time allowed because I know there are a large number of hon. members who are deeply interested in this subject. As *there are only three and a haif hours for debate today I feel that I should be as brief as possible to give an opportunity for others to speak who wish to do so.
I have said that I know that this matter is one of the greatest interest to a large number of hon. members. I base that statement on the volume of resolutions and letters which I have received from all parts of Canada in support of the suggestion contained in the resolution and also from conversations which I have had with my colleagues in the house in which they have indicated their interest in and concern over the situation which exists. I say without fear of contradiction that there

is evidence of a disturbing increase in the volume of filthy literature circulating in Canada.
That fact indicates the seriousness of the problem. It is also a problem of great complexity, the solution to which is going to tax the ingenuity of this house or of any body that has to deal with it. I venture to state that the difficulty of the problem is indicated in the words of the resolution, which I have phrased as I did because of that difficulty. So that the context may be complete, I should like to read the resolution, which is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of appointing a joint committee of both houses of parliament for the purpose of studying and recommending legislation or other measures under which the growing volume of filthy literature circulating in Canada can be effectively dealt with, without at the same time improperly restricting the freedom of the press or of genuine literary or artistic expression.
That is the problem, and it is an old problem. The problem is to reconcile freedom of speech and literary and artistic expression with the necessity of preventing abuse, preventing a situation under which liberty becomes licence and degenerates, in so far as this matter is concerned, into lewdness or obscenity.
' Hon. members, from reading the press and other sources dealing with this matter, are perhaps well acquainted with the fact that there is in Canada, as there is in the United States, a growing concern over this problem. Therefore it is not necessary for me to review at any length the growth of the situation which now confronts us. I would however draw your attention and the attention of others to the fact that there has existed on the statute books of Canada for some years legislation dealing with obscene literature. This will be found in section 207 of the Criminal Code. This legislation was substantially amended in 1949 by a bill passed in the second session of that year.
The fact is that the only heading under which obscene literature is dealt with in section 207 is by use of the one word "obscene". There is no wider or broader definition given in the code of the type of literature with which we are concerned. It is made an offence to print, publish, circulate and, generally speaking, otherwise deal with or have in possession, for any of those purposes, obscene literature.
The amendment which was passed by parliament in 1949 provided for certain changes, but they dealt mainly with crime comics. I am not attempting to state that that was the only purpose or only effect of that legislation, but I think I am accurate when I say that it was the main concern before the
Obscene Literature
house at that time. So, broadly speaking, we are left in the situation where the legislation dealing with obscene literature is in the same form as that in which it has existed for many years. I but reflect the views of a very large number of Canadians and I believe a considerable proportion of the membership of the house when I say that, under circumstances now prevailing, as pointed up by the very great increase in the volume of this filthy matter now circulating, it is correct to say that the legislation is no longer adequate to deal with the situation.
In connection with this whole subject, I received this morning a report that has just been published of a committee of the United States congress. It is headed, "Report of the Select Committee on Current Pornographic Materials, House of Representatives, 82nd Congress, Pursuant to House Resolution 596", which was passed in May of last year. The United States house of representatives set up a committee pursuant to that resolution which made an exhaustive study of the whole matter. For the benefit of the house I should like to read the summary of their approach to the matter. I do so because I find that their approach and the approach I am about to suggest are almost identical. As recorded at page 12, the United States committee said:
A practical solution consistent with adequate safeguards against possible violation of the constitutional rights of free speech is the aim of the committee and never has it entertained any thought of federal censorship of the press.
I submit, Mr. Speaker that is the line of approach which our parliament should follow. We should not adopt, as the objective in dealing with this problem, the setting up of any form of federal censorship. I believe that to set up a form of censorship, particularly at the federal level, would be to expose the country to dangers greater possibly than the danger with which we are seeking to deal, the danger present in this large volume of filthy literature. There are other approaches much more consistent with our traditions of justice, freedom and democracy which I suggest should be the main concern of the house in seeking ways to deal with the problem. I suggest that the basis of that approach is to seek to strengthen the existing legislation, to seek to find a method under our Criminal Code whereby we may define with sufficient clarity just what offence is meant, just what it is that we mean by obscene literature which it is an offence to publish, so that our courts may deal with the matter with certainty and without the great difficulties which now surround their consideration of such cases when they come before them.
I shall have something to say in that connection in a few moments. I mention it at

Obscene Literature
this stage because I want to make it perfectly clear that that at any rate is my approach to the matter in bringing it before the house, not that we should have censorship, but rather that we should seek to strengthen the legislation and then leave it to the courts to decide whether, in any particular instance, an individual or a corporation has been guilty of an offence.
I should like to have the indulgence of the house for a moment or two to outline the seriousness and extent of the problem, because after all what I am suggesting, and suggesting in all seriousness, is that the House of Commons should set up a committee to deal with the whole matter, and I know how serious that is. Parliament is composed of members who have a great volume of work, who are extremely busy, and it would not be proper for anyone to suggest lightly that we should add to our work by setting up another committee unless the subject suggested for reference thereto is one of extreme importance.


Mr. Garson:: I wonder if I might ask my hon, friend a question. Before he leaves the alleged inadequacy of the law, would he favour us with his opinion as to why it is inadequate as it stands at the present time. That seems to be the point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister will permit me, I shall come back to that in the course of my remarks. I intend to deal with it, and will not leave it with only a passing reference, but I want now to suggest to the house the seriousness and extent of the problem which I say should be referred to a committee. I should like to rely to a considerable extent, if I may, on quotations from authorities far better qualified than I am. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a committee of the Senate was set up to study the whole matter. It sat during the last session and I understand it is to resume its studies during the present session. I shall not refer to anything current but I should like to quote one or two excerpts from their proceedings of last session.
One question which I think is sometimes present in the minds of those considering this matter is whether alter all it is so important. I know in fact that it is rather easy and sometime? tempting to treat the necessity of dealing with obscene literature as the ideas of a bluestocking reformer, as something which can be treated with humour and laughed off. I take the liberty of suggesting, on the basis of my own experience, that it is not readily understood by ordinary Canadians of decent mind the extent to which this filthy literature infests the newsstands across the country. It comes as an eye-opener, as a shock, to go in and browse around a newsstand and pick up some of the things exposed

for sale there and which are available at 5, 10 or 15 cents-rarely more than 35 cents- to the youth of the country. Anyone realizing the volume and the perniciousness of the materials which are offered for sale, and the ease with which they can be acquired, would, I am confident, not hesitate for a moment to devote his full attention to the question.
I hope I shall be able to lay before the house some indications of the extent of the circulation of this material, and therefore of the seriousness of the problem, in justification of my request that we set up a committee to deal with it. Last session a delegation from the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire appeared before the Senate committee. It is not necessary for me to speak about the responsibility of that organization and the care with which it might be expected to make its representations. Here is an extract from what they had to say with respect to the extent of the danger. They are dealing at this stage with comic books only, and I wish to read from page 30 of the report of the proceedings of the. special committee of the Senate. They said:
There are approximately 125 "comic" books published with types too numerous to mention. One newspaper editor in the United States examined 108 "comic" books and found 70 per cent altogether undesirable. A survey committee in Victoria, B.C., estimates that less than 10 per cent of the "comics" are at all desirable
They go on to say:
Few and deadly dull are the comics that even pretend to be comical. The humour has disappeared. Instead we have Superman and gangs of thieves, G-men and sadistic murderers who carve their way through the "funny pages" talking plain talk, and giving people "the works".
Comics are on sale at all newsstands, many shoe-shine parlours and tobacco shops. They also are stocked in pool rooms and children go there to make their purchases. Bookstores refuse to stock "comics" because children, coming to buy, handle and soil other merchandise.
The "comic strips", however, are mild in comparison with the "escape literature" of today. Just to look at the gruesome cover pictures on a newsstand is enough to make one's hair curl. Yet apparently people, including children, read it, and in fact demand it. The "bad" versus the "good" is, the theme nowadays and the ugly chatter of machine guns and the wham-wham of black automatics are altogether commonplace.
Then the committee of the United States house reporting on their studies of the extent to which this material circulates had this to say, and I am reading from page 2 of their report:
Pornography is big business. The extent to which the profit motive has brushed aside all generally accepted standards of decency and good taste and substituted inferior moral standards, has become not only a national disgrace but a menace to our civic welfare as well. Parents who would not tolerate salacious conversation in their homes apparently do not object to, or are unaware of.

the presence of degrading types of books and magazines devoted to the same topics, whose principal appeal is to the salacious-minded.
They go on:
In addition to their other vices, so-called "comics" for children are build-ups for later sales to adults of low ethical standards. Much of the modern output of such juvenile fiction does not teach children to think straight. Cartoon-comic books, a degenerate outgrowth of long-established newspaper comic strips, were "bootlegged" when they first made their appearance but are now flaunted openly in public markets. Men who certainly ought to know, former Warden Lewis Lawes of Sing Sing Prison, J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the F.B.I., and Judge James V. Mulholland, of the New York City Domestic Relations and Children's Courts, agree that they have a definite influence upon the motivations of youthful offenders.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to quote from the statement made by one member of the committee of the United States house who spoke of her difficulty in persuading herself that this was in fact a pressing problem. I suggest that in the minds of many in Canada there is present the same difficulty. As reported at page 9 of this report she says:
I can remember very well that ten years ago so-called smutty literature was unknown in this country. It was so unknown that I personally, when I was appointed to this committee, thought we were chasing something that was rather absurd because there was so little of it, that it would not amount to anything.
Now the thing that has appalled me is that this stuff is very big business, that it is going out in millions, and that, as I see the picture, it has changed the mores and the morals of the country because, after all, people can be judged by what they read.
I was always under the very happy impression that Americans did not read this kind of literature, but they apparently do, judging by the money that is taken in by great publishing houses, and also by the quantity of this stuff that comes out, and I think it is unfortunate that they are reading so much of this.
The evidence that we have had, both by way of representations from individuals and by way of submissions to the Senate committee, indicates that the situation in Canada is no less serious than it is in the United States.
Then there is the question of who is responsible for the situation, and I have heard a number of suggestions to the effect that this is not a matter calling for parliamentary action or legislative action-that it is a matter which the parents and the people of Canada, and particularly the publishers and distributors of printed material, should themselves handle.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the house that the problem has gone far beyond the stage at which such voluntary action, if you want to call it that, can provide an adequate solution. There is the question of the various stages involved from the time the material is conceived in the mind of some perverted
Obscene Literature
author, through the various printing, publishing, distribution and retail trades into the hands of the ultimate purchaser. There is the question whether the vendor, the distributor, the publisher or the printer should be the target of suggestions about how this matter might be handled.
The Senate committee had an outline presented to it last year of the difficulties of saying just who is responsible for the widespread distribution of this filthy material. They had before them a gentleman who owns a newsstand here in Ottawa. It appears that in Canada, in this part of the country at any rate, this type of publication is distributed mainly by two large concerns, the National News Company and the American News Company. This witness gave us the information that the retailer was not free to insist to his distributor that he should not be provided with undesirable types of literature and that they should give him only the desirable type that he might wish to sell. He informed the committee that the vendors receive what they call packaged literature. That might mean they would get up to 75 different magazines in a bundle. That bundle is delivered to the store on regular days once a week in most cases. It contained just the number and type of magazine which the distributor felt were appropriate in that bundle.
He said that in his little store it is necessary, and would always be necessary if he wanted to be certain that no undesirable material reached the public, to have a girl and pay her full time to do nothing more than to go through those bundles and make sure the undesirable literature was removed and put under the counter leaving only the desirable types exposed for sale. Even then he said it is difficult to know whether you are getting a person qualified to make that choice.
So you see, Mr. Speaker, that it is not fair- although I am not suggesting that they should be absolved altogether-to blame the vendors, because they get this material in vast quantities and it is a task of the greatest difficulty, from a physical point of view alone, for them to sort it out. It is my suggestion that the distributor, and more particularly the printer and publisher, should be held responsible; and that the greatest onus for cleaning up this situation should be placed on them.
The witness I am referring to, a Mr. Grenier, gave this answer before the Senate committee to a question regarding what would be necessary for the retailer to clean up the situation. As shown at page 23 of the committee's proceedings, he was asked by one hon. senator:
You would require a censor in every retail store?

The answer was:
It would amount to that.
The United States committee came to very-much the same conclusion about the difficulties of cleaning the situation up by taking action at the retail level. As reported at page 17 of the report of their select committee, they said:
It seems clear that publishers are responsible for the inception, preparation, distribution, and sale of pornographic literature, which now reaches an incredible volume and produces profits of such magnitude as to encourage resistance on their part to all efforts leading to control by law. Any effort toward controlling this menace effectively must begin at the source, which is the publisher, and this is emphasized by the results of inquiries which the committee has conducted.
They say further:
It would be paradoxical to state that if such books were not in existence this moral stigma would thereby be eliminated; but the idea in making such a statement is to point out that the source of this pornographic stream is the publishing house and while the distributor, the wholesaler, and the retailer all participate as purveyors, it is the publisher who is primarily responsible, since he is the architect and creator without whom the chain of distribution could not function.
In Canada, Mr. Speaker-and I mention this only in passing-the problem is complicated by the extent to which literature circulated in this country is imported from the United States. Even if we could devise a satisfactory answer along these lines, probably it would not be the complete answer in Canada to hold the publisher exclusively responsible, because in many cases the publishers are United States concerns. We have to go a little farther than the findings of the United States committee might suggest.
As to the nature of these problems, may I just read one further extract from the findings of that United States committee. I do this, Mr. Speaker, because I have read through this volume carefully and I say without hesitation that their findings, in so far as the nature of this filthy stuff is concerned and its prevalence, are borne out by the limited investigation that I, as one individual, have been able to carry out in Canada. The situation here is proportionately just as bad as it is there. Here is what the committee has to say with regard to the magazine type of obscene literature, which I think is the type that reaches young Canadian boys and girls in the formative stage of their lives, in the greatest quantity. I read this from page 24:
The weight of evidence against cheesecake-nudism is not so much against nudity per se as against those avaricious publishers who present their subjects in torsos abnormally exaggerated as to their secondary sexual attributes, and in suggestive, even lascivious, poses. It cannot be denied that such pictures will have a libidinous effect on many normal individuals. Their effect upon the

Obscene Literature
subnormal individual may be more disastrous. The most objectionable feature of this state of affairs is that pornographic pictures are sold indiscriminately to men, women, youths of both sexes, and even to children.
It is not pleasant to dwell at length on the details of the kind of filth found in these publications, but I should like to outline for you an example from just one publication. I think it may come as a shock to hon. members, certainly it did to me, to know about this. I do want to emphasize to the house that the extreme seriousness of this situation is that children-possibly the children of many of the hon. members here-are exposed daily to this type of thing. It is a matter calling for the earnest consideration of parliament to find ways and means of ending the flood of this filthy literature.
In a magazine which I picked up on the newsstand in Ottawa, but which I shall not name, there was a series of pictures of what you might call the comic strip variety. It was entitled "Undressed to Kill". There was a series of pictures of a bandit, so-called holding a woman up at the point of a gun and forcing her to undress; and the undressing is revealed progressively until the culmination. The first picture has the caption- " 'What's coming off here?' the cool killer asks his beautiful victim" She has her dress about half way down. The next picture- "Too bashful to answer, April turns her back on the cad. Nice back." Let us say nothing about that-except that the dress is all the way down now. " 'O.K., Babe', he says, 'let's take off.' Our nervous heroine thinks he means this." By now the slip is coming off. In the next picture, "She gives him a different view of his work. Nice view."- showing a further stage of disrobing. "He sees this won't be an undercover job, and he likes what he sees." Then: "Fighting desperately for her life, she sends a warm breeze his way." And the final picture: "No use. A -45 slug rips through pale flesh and April's out of season." She is by then completely undressed, and being carried off over the shoulder of the "bandit".
The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is this. This type of magazine can come into the hands of anyone in Canada who wants to buy it. They are being bought, and bought in large quantities, by young boys and girls. As every hon. member knows, children are born imitators. They imitate, not in the sense of wanting to do something that is wrong, but simply because it is what they have seen. Even if it happens to be wrong, they imitate it, and the first thing they know, they are accused of doing something wrong.

I ask hon. members who may have children themselves to imagine what would happen if this magazine or others like it fell into the hands of a gang of boys, perhaps 12 or 13 years old, to whom these words and pictures appeal as a rather exciting thing. They would be inclined to imitate it. Here is a rather exciting thing they have seen illustrated, and they decide it would be fun to copy it. I believe every hon. member will be able to look back and recall, from his own knowledge, actual cases about which he has heard, where boys and girls have got into trouble by doing that sort of thing in exactly the sort of way I am describing. They may start by undressing their little sister or by grabbing a little girl on a vacant lot and starting to undress her. I am not overshooting the mark, because the undressing of others, and worse, has been done by gangs of school children in cities of the United States and our own country.
Obviously, such incidents are not the result of only one cause, but I do suggest this sort of thing is a contributing factor. When we have illustrations of this sort, combined with the warnings of such men as Mr. Hoover, director of the federal bureau of investigation, that these things do contribute to juvenile crime, then I think we can appreciate the seriousness of the situation. We have, therefore, a very serious problem. We have the problem of preventing people from perverting the minds and morals of youth for profit, but it is a problem which I believe to be capable of solution by this parliament.
I am not going to be dogmatic, and am suggesting the question be referred to a committee. But my own view is that one way to a solution lies in strengthening the legislation, which still refers to the one word obscene". This word "obscene" has received a variety of interpretations. I looked it up in the Oxford dictionary and in Funk and Wagnalls, the United States dictionary, and I find that these authoritative works have great difficulty in adequately defining the word "obscene".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is my hon. friend aware of the fact that it has been judicially interpreted?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am very much aware of the fact that it has been judicially interpreted in the case of Regina v. Hickslin, I think the name was. In any event, it was Chief Justice Cockburn who laid down the judicial definition of the word "obscene". I have his definition before me here, and it reads:
The test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.
Obscene Literature
One of the difficulties there, of course, is that that sets up any judge trying such a case as a censor. He has to determine whether or not the matter complained of is obscene within the meaning of that definition, whether or not the tendency of the matter charged would be such as to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands such a publication may fall. The difficulty-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just in a minute. The difficulty that judges have found, and indeed have expressed in the courts, is that they do not feel themselves qualified to be censors, because they realize fully that what may appear to be obscene to them, and may be obscene in one context to them, may not be obscene to others, and might not be obscene in another context. Judges have expressed, as the minister knows, the greatest reluctance to come to conclusions as to whether or not matter complained of is actually obscene; although they have expressed the strongest personal revulsion to the matter complained of, they still say: "I do not want to set myself up as a censor."


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will my hon. friend tell us, if a judge is not permitted to decide on questions of fact in a matter of this kind, such as whether it is obscene, in what other way an enforceable section of the code could be drafted?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am going to give a suggestion along those lines in a minute, and I realize I am perhaps soon going to break my own resolution and speak for the full forty minutes, so I will hasten to a conclusion. I do not suggest for a moment that a judge should not have to determine a question of fact; but-and I am not going to be dogmatic and lay down the words of any definition which might be adopted, though I should hope it would be decided by the suggested committee after its hearings
that some clear definition be inserted_________I
suggest the judge should be assisted in his task of deciding the question of fact by a more adequate, a more clear-cut definition, dealing by classification if necessary, of the types of literature which now circulate in quantities and of a sort entirely unheard of and unsuspected when this legislation was .first enacted. Here, for instance, is an illustration of the sort of problem with which judges are faced, and problems which have the result that judges are not deciding questions of fact but are deciding questions of conjecture and are asked to become the

Obscene Literature
arbiters of moral standards, a position which every judge, however high-minded he may be, dislikes being placed in.
In the case of Rex v. Descotes, a 1925 case, reported at 63, Quebec Supreme Court Cases, page 52, the judge said this:
The last words of this quotation-
Referring to another authority.
-point out & factor which must be borne in mind. A medical work would not be obscene if sold only to medical students or practitioners. But it might be most unwise to allow such a book to fall into the hands of young people without medical training, and so far as the general public was concerned, such a book would then be obscene, and its sale an offence.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What is obscure about that? That is as clear as daylight.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It may be clear to the minister but it has certainly not been a matter that judges have found it clear to decide. The minister wants to leave the judges and the courts without any help in arriving at this question of whether or not the matter complained of is obscene, and we have seen the results in our courts. It is perfectly true that a number of prosecutions have succeeded, but a number of other prosecutions, in connection with matter which I suggest without hesitation this parliament would unanimously decide was obscene, have failed because the judge has said: "I have my own personal views about it, which I would not hesitate to express, but as a judge in a court of law I do not feel that I am qualified to set myself up as a censor and say what is obscene, because, although it is obscene to me, it may not be obscene to others, and for all I know it may not be obscene to the majority." I suggest to the minister and to the house that it is the duty of parliament-that is one of the things that we as legislators are here for-to say what "obscene" means, and when we are providing that it shall be an offence against society to engage in the publication of this type of lewd, obscene matter, to say wherein the offence lies; and that being so, let us define what is the obscenity that we are trying to deal with, and define it in such clear terms that when a judge is confronted in a complaint against a person that he has committed that offence, he will be enabled to find without hesitation and without doubt whether or not that person committed that offence. In view of the many judicial statements and dicta in connection with these cases, the minister cannot say that judges are in a position today where they can make such a finding without hesitation and without doubt.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will the hon. member permit another question? My hon. friend says that parliament will be able to draft a better definition. Can he imagine a better definition of obscenity than the very one which he has just quoted? The test of obscenity is this: whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall. Can he imagine parliament getting a better definition than that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I can imagine that a committee might work out a better definition. That definition was given in 1868 before the present pulp comic was ever thought of, and at a time when literature which now masquerades in many cases, in cheap editions, under the guise of works of art and sociological studies, in gaudy covers, was simply not available to the teen-agers, boys and girls, into whose hands that literature now falls.
I am sorry I cannot deal with it at too great length; my time is nearly up. Take the case of the medical book referred to in Rex v. Descotes-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is exactly covered by this definition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With deference, the minister and I apparently are just poles apart, because I submit it is not covered by that definition at all. Are you going to charge the medical book as being obscene simply because it falls into the hands of a person other than a medical student? And yet that is the difficulty. Are these books, which might not be regarded as obscene if they come into the hands of certain people, to be regarded as obscene merely because they come into the hands of other people? That is what the minister is saying. In other words, the minister would want the judge to make the test of obscenity not whether it was really obscene or not but into whose hands the matter came. I submit that is not a satisfactory test of obscenity.
Whether the minister and I can ever be of one mind on this point or not, I do say this to him, to you, sir, and to the house, that the growing concern over the danger to the morals of the children of this country, expressed by parents and by many organizations, is an indication, if any other indication were needed, that this matter is not being satisfactorily dealt with under the present legislation; and indeed, sir, the very fact that the volume of this filthy stuff circulating in Canada is growing in such enormous proportions is another indication, if another indication were needed, that there is not a satisfactory answer in the legislation on the statute books at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am not going to be dogmatic. I think the whole question is one for a committee of parliament to study. If of course they feel that the present legislation is satisfactory, then they will so recommend. But I think there should be a committee. I hope the house will agree because I believe there are sufficient able men in this house and in the other place to be able-and here I answer the minister definitely-to devise a more satisfactory definition, a definition which is more appropriate in the light of the present type and quantity of literature circulating in Canada, and also possibly to classify the types of literature with which we are dealing, because there is certainly no attempt to differentiate between different sorts under the present legislation.
I can tell the house as a matter of interest that I had the opportunity to appear before the Senate committee last session. I asked the hon. senators if they would welcome a suggestion that this house join them in such a study. They gave me their assurance that they would indeed, and that if this house were to set up a committee the two committees might then meet and form a joint committee of parliament to continue the study on which they have embarked.
I know that you cannot legislate morality; you cannot, by legislation, require and compel people to accept standards which they do not believe in. But I do not think there is any difficulty on that ground, because certainly the moral standards of the people of Canada, as will be agreed by all members of this House of Commons, are such that they all condemn this filthy trash to which our children are exposed. So, while you cannot legislate morality, I do believe you can and you should, by legislation, define as an offence the publication of literature which seeks, for motives of profit, to pervert morals, particularly those of children. And that is what this type of filthy trash does. I think by legislation we should provide that that shall be an offence, adequately defined, and liable to extremely heavy punishment.
I hope that the house will accept the suggestion to set up a committee which would devote its attention to the whole problem, to the end that the people of this country, particularly the children of Canada, may have more protection than, I respectfully suggest, they have now against this type of obscene literature.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, following the speech of the hon. member who has moved the resolution, I should like to indicate at the beginning that, as a
Obscene Literature
citizen, as a member of the House of Commons, as Minister of Justice and, particularly, as a parent, I am in complete agreement with him as to the desirability of doing everything within our power to stamp out traffic in this obscene literature.
We know, as he has stated, that there are those who make light of this literature, as being not a matter of serious moment. But I do not share their views for one moment. I think that this is a matter of great seriousness.
I was glad to hear him say that, he agrees with the conclusions of an American committee to the effect that a practical solution is their aim. We can all agree in being against sin, and we all agree with practical solutions. I am glad to hear him say that he has no thought of censorship. I wondered if, toward the end of his remarks, what he had in mind was some kind of index of banned books prepared by parliament. He shakes his head in the negative and I am glad to see that he excludes that possibility.
Likewise I was glad to hear him say, and I entirely agree with him, that there is no use depending upon voluntary action in this matter, because it will not be sufficient.


An hon. Member:: Private enterprise intervenes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Quite. Where there is a
thoroughgoing big business on the one hand, and a few volunteers on the other; and it simply will not work out.
That being the case, it seems to me that my hon. friend from Kamloops has pretty successfully narrowed down the field of inquiry of the committee to which he has referred, and the field of consideration that we might give to this matter in the present debate. He has narrowed it down to a provision in the Criminal Code prohibiting the possession or the sale of this type of literature.
As I understand my hon. friend, he says that the section in the Criminal Code at the present time is defective only in that it does not provide a sufficiently clear definition of the crime itself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not have time to make all the suggestions that should be made. That is my main objection to the present provision. But I also believe the penalties are not sufficiently heavy, and that they should be even more severe against the printers and publishers than they should be against retailers and distributors. Those are other suggestions.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am very glad to have my hon. friend's supplementary remarks- but I think he wiU agree with me that the question of penalty is not basic in the matter. The basic question is whether we can get a satisfactory definition of the crime itself.

Obscene Literature
Now, while I agree with my hon. friend on all these points I have indicated, I still deprecate very much indeed his attitude toward this subject, and for reasons which I shall now indicate. Because what will prevent more than anything else any proper action in connection with this matter is divided counsels as to the manner in which it should now be dealt with. And when we are fussing around and tinkering with the law, instead of enforcing it, we are not going to cure this evil.
My submission is-and I hope to back it up with cogency-that the law which we now have is quite enforceable. I say that the way to cure this evil is a very simple way, and that is by enforcing that existing law; and every step we take, such as the one which my hon. friend indicates in the house today, that draws attention away from the fact that enforcement is the only thing that will cure the evil, is a step in the wrong direction.
The thing to do today is to bring to bear the pressure of public opinion upon the authorities which have the responsibility for enforcing this law. In that way-and in my judgment in no other way-will we cure the evil in quick order.
What are the facts? I am surprised my hon. friend from Kamloops, of all members of this house, should have forgotten them so soon. He brought a bill before the House of Commons dealing with crime comics. It was accepted by the government in good faith. But when we examined it we thought it was wholly inadequate for the purposes for which it was intended.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not easy to understand. It was prepared by the Department of Justice for the previous minister of justice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That may or may not be; but I had thought perhaps it was done under my hon. friend's instructions.
But, no matter what its origin was, when it was considered it was found to be wholly inadequate for the purposes for which it was intended. And my hon. friend must remember-and if not I shall now refresh his memory upon the point-that his bill was held here in committee for a long time. And for what purpose? It was held in committee in order that, as we had announced we would do, we could write to the attorneys general of the various provinces of Canada, and have them confer with their prosecuting officers, men who know from practical experience what should be in a law of this kind to put it into a condition that a clever defence lawyer could not drive a herd of elephants through it.
And after the bill had been in committee for that purpose for that length of time, after 
we had received very great co-operation and consideration from those law officers in the provinces of Canada, we incorporated all their best suggestions into the law which now appears upon the statute book. This law now reflects the judgment of the people who day in and day out are dealing with this matter. With all deference to the Senate committee or the House of Commons committee, if there is any group of people in Canada who should know what should go into a law of this kind, then surely it must be the people who have the experience and responsibility of enforcing it.
These provincial law officers made suggestions from which we drafted this section. It was very clear, when we got the bill into the Senate, and representatives of the industry came down to give testimony concerning it, that they took strong umbrage at this treatment which they said they had received. "Why", they said, "the bill that the hon. member who introduced it in the first place presented suited us very well. We were quite agreeable to that. But now that the government have come along, after the bill had been introduced, and changed it in this way, it is a terrible thing for us. It will put us right out of business"-as I believe it might tend to do, if it were enforced.


Mr. Low:: Perhaps they should be out of business.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Out of this business?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No one is arguing on that score; perhaps it would be better.
Now, in this section they did not define "obscene" because it was the judgment of these practical and experienced criminal lawyers that the judicial interpretation of the word "obscene", which was the one stated by my hon. friend, was just as good as any that parliament would be likely to devise, and was all the more certain and effective because that was already the law as established by judicial decision. What is the matter with this definition?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister not recall that, although the section dealt with other things, it dealt with crime comics as new matter, and a definition of crime comics was written into the statute?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: A definition was written into the statute?


Edmund Davie Fulton: By the bill in 1949.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Certainly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why not a definition of obscene literature?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For the simple reason-


Edmund Davie Fulton: If one has worked, why would not the other?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For the very reason that my hon. friend from Kamloops developed at some length in his own remarks today. My hon. friend said that the reason we have to redefine obscenity is that the judges back at the time of Chief Justice Cockburn did not properly know what obscenity was, that they were innocents in those days.


Mr. Fleming:: He did not say that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That was the implication.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I said was that they did not have to deal with the type of literature with which we have to deal today.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would point out to my hon. friend that the reason there was not any reference to crime comics in the judicial literature, in the law books and in the statutes at the time Chief Justice Cockburn made that decision was that they did not then have this new invention of crime comics. I'f we were going to deal with and prohibit crime comics we had to define them in the legislation. But when one examines this definition of obscenity by Chief Justice Cockburn its great value becomes apparent. It reads:
The test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.
My hon. friend was much concerned as to whether medical works were obscene. To begin with, a medical work may cost $5 or $6 and hence it may not likely fall into the hands of the average adolescent or other person adversely affected by it. Even if it did, any medical work I have seen, even though it may have dealt with sex, did not handle the subject in a very amorous or erotic manner, and I do not think it would tend to deprave or corrupt.
After this law went on the statute books, a great number of complaints came to my department from those who felt strongly about the matter and who argued along the same lines my hon. friend was arguing today, that the law was defective. There would be in this or that municipality perhaps a situation where the local authorities did not want to deal with the matter or get caught between amiable booksellers, on the one hand, and those who wanted to stop this traffic in immoral literature, on the other. They did not want to become tangled in a controversy, as to the freedom of the press, between the extremists who wanted great freedom of thought, on the one hand,
Obscene Literature
and those who were prepared to clamp dowr most severely, on the other hand. It was s very hot issue and not one which the law enforcement officers were desirous oi tackling.
The obvious excuse would be, "we cannol prosecute because the law is not enforceable.' I got a number of letters from various municipalities, and even some resolutions which were passed by councils after greal deliberation, to the effect that the law was not enforceable and asking us to change i1 in order to make it enforceable. Remember this was after parliament had received mj hon. friend's bill, had held it in committee for several weeks so that we might confer with the people whose advice might be the best available, and we did accept their advice in order to produce an enforceable law. Yel the whole issue is said to be still obscure tc some. I should like to read as a sample s letter which I wrote to one of these municipal councils. This reads in part:
It will be recalled that in- 1949 parliament revised and re-enacted the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with this subject. Before the revision was undertaken, we consulted the attorneys genera] of all the provinces of Canada, who in turn consulted their law enforcement officers in order that the revised provisions might include everything tc make the new enactment more enforceable. For this reason it is felt that the new section has been made as enforceable as it can be.
It will be recognized that the jurisdiction of the federal parliament extends only to the making oi criminal law. We do not have anything to dc with its enforcement which is entirely in the hands of the provincial legislatures of the provincial governments and the municipalities, which derive theii power from the provincial legislatures. The problem is basically one of enforcement and thus far we have received no representations which woulc lead us to believe that the present law is unenforceable. Your council will appreciate, however, tha1 any experiences with the application of the relevant sections of the Criminal Code to this problem ir your city would be of assistance in considering this matter now.
Here is the $64 question.
It would be of interest to know how many times in your city the crown prosecutor or the police force have laid charges under section 207 of the Criminal Code. If such charges have been laic and it was impossible to secure a conviction, i would be of interest to have the ruling of th( magistrate or judge in order to consider in wha respect, if any, the law might be considered to b< inadequate.
How can any person, such as my hon friend, argue that a law which has beet arrived at after the greatest precautions i: inadequate if no responsible law enforcemen officer will take it upon himself to invoke it' I might say that I have not received a singlf reply from a municipality to that type o letter indicating that having attempted t< invoke this law they found it unenforceable


Donald Methuen Fleming: What objection would the minister have to seeking the collective wisdom of and study by a joint committee of both houses?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is the objection. When this parliament has received a bill, has considered it, has held it in committee for some weeks in order to get the best advice available, has then considered that advice and has brought forth an amendment which no person has argued with any convincing effect is unenforceable, surely the time has been reached in dealing with this evil to concentrate the forces of public opinion upon the enforcement of it, and not be wavering irresolutely in more committee discussion. Just enforce the law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is an odd thing for a minister of this government to say.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the minister remember that he advocated the appointment of a committee a year ago last fall when members of this house were advocating some action? What is he talking about dilly-dallying for? Surely if it is said that he wants suggestions he is not above receiving them from a parliamentary committee now.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am not decrying for a moment the great virtues of a parliamentary committee in respect of a matter which requires consideration before a law is enacted. What I say is that when this parliament has already given it the utmost consideration, when it has enacted a law which is quite enforceable, and which no one can say is unenforceable,

you are just helping out the very evil you are trying to stamp out if you do not then concentrate upon its enforcement. That is what I say.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Will the minister permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Surely.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister says, "If you do not concentrate on its enforcement." Having regard to what I imagine we all agree is the lamentable situation at the moment, does the minister not think that perhaps one of the advantages of a committee of this kind might be to arouse the public conscience which so obviously needs it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, I suppose it might have some effect in that regard, but that is not in accordance with the theory developed by my hon. friend who moved the resolution today, which is-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Certainly it is.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Just let me finish the sentence before you interrupt.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Certainly it is.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -that he wants to set up a
committee-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I say that it is.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will be very glad to sit down, as I always do, and let my hon. friend speak if he will just let me finish the sentence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are saying that I said something I did not say.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend said, if I understood him correctly-and he can contradict me if he wishes-that he wanted to set up this committee because he thought the use of the word "obscene" was not satisfactory. He wanted parliament to provide, for the purposes of this section, a better definition of "obscene".


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I correct the minister? I think it is obvious that he has misunderstood my remarks. I said I was not going to be dogmatic. I wanted a committee to review the whole matter in the light of what has been described as an unsatisfactory situation and, while not being dogmatic, I said that I was going to make some suggestions. My suggestion would be to proceed along the lines of improving and perfecting the legislation; but it was not the tenor of my remarks that the committee should be set up for the sole purpose of redefining obscenity. If I said anything to give the minister that impression, it certainly was not intentional. In any event the resolution speaks for itself.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, but it does not speak for my hon. friend's speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, the minister cannot find that in my speech. The resolution says:
-a committee . . . for the purpose of . . . recommending legislation or other measures under which the growing volume of filthy literature . . . can be effectively dealt with-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In any event what my hon. friend has said is on Hansard, so it will speak for itself. I should like to refer to section 207 (1) (b). I had better read the beginning of the section so it will make sense. It reads as follows:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who . . .
(b)	makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in possession for any such purpose, any crime comic.
That was my hon. friend's bill or the substance of it.
Subsection 2 reads as follows:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years imprisonment who knowingly, without lawful justification or excuse,
(a)	sells, exposes to public view or has in possession for any such purpose any obscene written matter, picture, model, or other thing whatsoever:
(b)	publicly exhibits any disgusting object or any indecent show: or
(c)	offers to sell, advertises, publishes an advertisement of, or has for sale or disposal any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a means of preventing conception or causing abortion or miscarriage or advertises or publishes an advertisement of any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article for restoring sexual virility or curing venereal diseases or diseases of the generative organs.
Subsection 3 reads as follows:
"Crime comic" means in this section any magazine, periodical or book which exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially the commission of crimes, real or fictitious.
(4)	No one shall be convicted of any offence in this section mentioned if he proves that the public good was served by the acts alleged to have been done, and that there was no excess in the acts alleged beyond what the public good required.
(5)	It shall be a question for the judge whether such acts are such as might be for the public good, and whether there is evidence of excess beyond what the public good required; but it shall be a question for the jury whether there is or is not such excess.
(6)	The motives of the accused shall in all cases be irrelevant.
(7)	It shall be no defence to a charge under subsection 1 that the accused was ignorant of the nature or presence of the matter, picture, model, crime comic or other thing.
My hon. friend will recall that when this new section was brought down after we had conferred with the attorneys general of the provinces his colleague, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), criticized this legislation as being too tight and too tough, and said that if we left it in that form juries might acquit in protest against it.
Obscene Literature


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: May I ask a
question? Is there any change under the revised Criminal Code? I have been reading the section and it is substantially the same, but it does not speak about everyone being liable on indictment. Is there any change with regard to the manner in which a case would be heard.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have not examined the new provisions with that in view, but I think not. My offhand view would be that there is no change at all, because the purpose of the consolidation of the code was in general to consolidate it but not to change any of its principles. There was no occasion for changing this section 207. Suppose we set up this committee and it considers the matter. Can my hon. friend suggest any other better consideration by the committee, if they have any doubts whether this word is adequate, than that they should go back to the crown prosecutors of the various provinces and get another set of opinions from them? They are the ones who have had practical experience. If they do not know what an enforceable law is, who else is more likely to know? I suggest that when we have this law, when so far the enforcement authorities have not seen fit to invoke it to the extent that they should, the thing we should do now is to bring the pressure of public opinion to bear in favour of its being enforced. Then if it appears that there is any doubt as to the efficacy of this law, that will be the time it will be worth while for us to have the matter considered by a parliamentary committee.
At the present time, as I think perhaps my hon. friend is aware, there has been a prosecution in the courts in Ottawa and there has been a conviction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is being appealed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes, quite. I should like to read from the judgment given by the trial court in that case. I have to be careful in doing so because the matter is still sub judice. However, I am not in any way questioning the judgment. As it happens, I entirely agree with it; I simply want to refer to it to see whether there is this great difficulty to which my hon. friend refers, as to the judge deciding on the facts of the case before him whether the material in question is obscene. Here is what Judge McDougall says-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I admit this judge found no difficulty in this case.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not the slightest.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But there are many the other way.

Obscene Literature


Stuart Sinclair Garson: First of all, did he have any difficulty in reaching an opinion, having regard to the fact that the section only mentions the one word "obscene" or "obscenity", as to what meaning should be given to that word? He says:
The rule as to the interpretation of the word "obscenity" in the statute has been well stated as: 'The test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.'
In other words, the interpretation given by Chief Justice Cockburn is still quite good law and has been recognized as definite and clear; and in my view we are lily-gilding if we attempt to disturb it in any way.
He says further down:
I have read the volume carefully.
This was "Tragic Ground" by Erskine Caldwell.
I can see little, if any, public good that can be accomplished by the distribution of this book to the public at large. In any event the language of the book and the description of the characters and of their actions is greatly in excess of anything required for that purpose.
Here we come to the complicated question my hon. friend is talking about-the matter of deciding whether the book in fact is obscene or not-a matter said to be of great complexity, of great difficulty. However, the learned judge disposes of it in-I have not counted the exact number-but about twenty-five words. He says:
In my opinion the tendency of the book would be to deprave and corrupt many of those into whose hands it would fall.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that this is probably on its way to becoming a leading case-I am told quite unofficially that the intention is to take it to the Supreme Court of Canada-that before we start dealing further with section 207 of the code we should find out whether this section, which was drafted with great care after consultation with all the attorneys general of the provinces, whose responsibility it will be to enforce it, and which has been affirmed in this judgment, is or is not good law, and enforceable. If it does not hold, that will be the time for us to give further consideration to the matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I finish this sentence? I do suggest, and I think my hon. friend from Eglinton who is rising to his feet will probably agree, that it will be a matter of very considerable difficulty for a parliamentary committee, interested in what my hon. friend

indicated is certainly one of the reasons for setting it up, to themselves arrive at a proper definition. I do not think the parliamentary committee will be able to discuss properly and with sufficient freedom a case of this sort which is sub judice. Why get into that difficulty unnecessarily, especially when we do not need to do so, in order to enforce this law just as it is throughout the length and breadth of Canada in any municipalities where the law enforcement officers may wish to do so?
For that reason I think we would be well advised not to consider changing this law, that has been so carefully drafted, until this case has gone to the Supreme Court of Canada and we know from it that the law is not enforceable.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the minister how long he expects that to take?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not know that I can help my hon. friend too much in that regard. A great deal depends upon the perseverance and pressure which the appellant puts upon his appeal. If he desires to get it before the supreme court quickly it will be one period of time. If on the other hand he wants to drag it out a bit, it is possible within limits to do that. It would have to go from the court that decided it to the appeal court of Ontario, and then appeal would be taken from that court to the supreme court.


William Joseph Browne: A couple of years.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think it would take a couple of years. It might take a year at the outside. In the meanwhile the law is good; and, in the meanwhile, as long as it is sub judice, neither parliament nor the Senate nor the committees thereof can discuss it. So what purpose would there be in sending it to a committee? The case we are discussing is a main case in issue in Canada today in connection with this matter, as I am sure my hon. friend from Kamloops will agree.
One point my hon. friend raised was, I thought, a very important one, and I am glad it led him to the view that censorship should not be attempted. Censorship I think, and I believe he will agree with this, can only be conducted in relation to specific documents or paper writings which are before the board of censors or before a judge in court as a censor. That is one of the difficulties and one of the reasons, I think, why the attorneys general did not want to attempt to define "obscene" or "obscenity" in the statute itself. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any legislative body by

language put into a statute in relation to literature generally, to provide a satisfactory and workable prohibition of written or other material which the legislature has not before it. If one attempts to classify these things the way my hon. friend suggests, in order to say this is permissible and that is not permissible and so on, surely that is a very difficult thing to do in the abstract without any concrete example before one. It is hard, as I think my hon. friend will admit-and that is part of his case-for the judge to decide whether or not a document or magazine in front of him is obscene. How infinitely more difficult it would be for the legislature in relation to unseen material to define adequately what was prohibited and what was not prohibited.
That is one of the reasons why I think this parliament very wisely accepted the recommendations of these law officers in just relying on the word "obscene" which, at the time it was suggested, had already been interpreted by Chief Justice Cockburn in the judgment to which reference has been made. For example, a certain subject dealt with by Shakespeare or Goethe or in a scientific thesis may be unquestionably not obscene. The same subject dealt with in this trash which is sold at the book stores at 25 cents a book may be unquestionably obscene. It is the same subject matter in both cases, and whether it is obscene is just a question of difference in treatment. The obscenity or otherwise in each case is a question of fact which has to be decided either by a board of censors or by the judge in a prosecution on the facts before them.
My submission is that this question is not to be decided fairly on any abstractions or general definitions in a statute. In the light of that fact, my contention, and my reason for suggesting that this motion should be voted down, is that there is nothing vague in section 207 (2) when it provides that:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who knowingly, without lawful justification or excuse (a) sells, exposes to public view or has in possession for any such purpose any obscene written matter, picture, model or other thing whatsoever:


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I think we should be grateful to the hon. member who has raised this question this afternoon. I believe he should be congratulated on the care and work which he has devoted to it over the years.
I am a great respecter of the power of an informed public opinion. You will notice that I include the word "informed". I think the hon. gentleman, by interposing this matter into the business of this house, has taken advantage of one of the methods by which public opinion can be so informed. We are creatures of habit, and we get into ways of 68108-78
Obscene Literature
doing things and into ways of reading things. I think it is a good thing that once in a while someone should stop and say: Let us consider the way in which we are going.
Personally I am inclined to look upon this resolution with some favour. It is at least innocuous in that it does not create any prohibition, and the best or worst that its implementation could mean would be the setting up of such a committee as the sponsor proposes. I cannot enter into the legal niceties indulged in by my learned friends, but I have followed the argument with some interest. I am more interested in the problem from other directions.
I was interested in the minister's statement that an informed and active public opinion would be the most compelling reason for the enforcement of the legislation which now exists. I believe his statement went something like this: Is it not true that those who have as their task the enforcement of such legislation are those best qualified to deal with this matter of deciding which of these things are obscene? I am somewhat worried about that statement. I wonder if the minister would apply it to the question of those who censor the literature entering Canada. Would he suggest that in such censorship as we have, if I may call it that, the customs officers along the United States boundary are the ones best qualified to judge what books shall or shall not be admitted to this country? I am aware that the customs officials, when in doubt, have an advisory board to which they can submit these books for reading and consideration. I know that censorship board is there. I am not going to branch into that today, because I have dealt with it once or twice before.
However, I am of course keenly conscious of the quantity of salacious literature that inundates our country, and our homes, today. I am perhaps almost as concerned about what I might call the silly and pointless reading as I am about the salacious variety. You will find some of this in the drugstores, although it has been a mystery to me why drugstores sell all these things as well as drugs. This literature is found in stationery shops, and the like, as well.
I am even more concerned, I think, about the lack of good reading which is displayed in these same places. I could not help but contrast conditions in Britain in this regard during a visit there a year or so ago. I am speaking of the availability of good books at prices which young people, or even most people, are able to afford or are prepared to spend for that sort of thing. If we are going to get people to read, we have to have reading matter available for them.

Obscene Literature
The unfortunate part of it is that this salacious reading matter is available in large quantities. It is practically ubiquitous across the length and breadth of this land. The only cheap reading material-no, that is not fair-most of the reading material that is available to us at reasonable prices is material of a poor and even harmful character. I am glad the hon. member put these words in his resolution:
-without at the same time improperly restricting the freedom of the press or of genuine literary or artistic expression.
As I believe the members of this house must have noted, during my period here I have been especially anxious about the preservation of intellectual freedom in the pursuit of truth. I would reject out of hand any form of censorship that would interfere with that freedom. Let that be basic and fundamental to the understanding of my feelings in regard to the question.
There is a matter, of course, of prohibition. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be successful; but if it were I doubt that I would be in favour of it whether it be the prohibition of liquor or of reading material. I voted for the prohibition of liquor once, but I do not know what I would do the next time. I was not very successful in my effort to stamp out that particular evil. As a parent and as a former teacher I have watched with some interest the effects of prohibition. If you want a little lad to smuggle a book off the shelf and read it in bed, the best way is to tell him not to do it. Perhaps hon. members will tell me that their children have been better behaved than mine, not that I consider we have made such a bad job of it. I have to say that publicly in case I get into trouble at home. I would suggest that it is a good thing to have lots of reading material available of the type you would like to have the little fellow take up and read in bed. In other words I am suggesting a positive rather than a negative approach to this whole matter.
Although the minister did not state it in these terms, I believe he is partly right in his argument when he says we have to pin our faith on education and other means of promoting. public taste.


William Joseph Browne: There is more education now than ever.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I do not want to be diverted. Reading habits are just that; in other words, they are habits; and as I understand it and as I have been told, habits are formed by the repetition of acts. I do not like to use the term "good", but if a young boy has an opportunity of reading material that is good or of getting a selection of reading material
(Mr. Knight.]
that has literary value, if you like, then I do not think we need to worry about his ultimate rejection of the filthy and the foolish. Educators, newspaper editors, publishers and such people, whom we expect to be well informed and good citizens of our country, I feel have some responsibility. I believe they should acknowledge and assume that responsibility. Some of them, of course, disagree.
I recall talking to quite a prominent editor of a well-known newspaper about this very subject. I was suggesting to him that the editors of newspapers have certain responsibilities. I think we were talking about the cultivation of public taste, and I was surprised at his answer. I have been told that newspapermen have a reputation for being "hard-boiled". If I may say so, he certainly did not lessen that opinion. I asked him, "Do you think it is the business of an editor to give to the public just what the public wants, or do you think he has any responsibility in the matter of promoting and refining the public taste?". I have never forgotten the answer. He said: Sir, I am not running a Sunday school, and the shareholders expect dividends". Well, I suggest that a growing public indecency and a depraved public taste are pretty heavy penalties to pay for the attainment of those particular dividends.
I shall simply conclude by saying that if somehow or other we could take the profit out of filth, it would tend to disappear.


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say a few words on this subject, as I did on the presentation of the bill on crime comics, introduced by the same hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). Of course, if anyone thinks a law can do away with or solve this problem he is greatly mistaken, because a law could never be enforced to such an extent as to stop any individual from obtaining one or two of these filthy books. A law of the kind advocated by the hon. member for Kamloops could help, and a committee of both houses could help, but it would not be the solution of the problem, I am sure.
There is one thing everyone knows, namely that obscene literature is something like the microbes in the physical organism. They are not very large; they are small, and they are introduced very surreptitiously into either the intellectual or moral organism, but the wounds that these kinds of microbes make in that organism are much more dangerous and much harder to heal than any physical wound, because the wound is moral and intellectual instead of being physical. The field of action of those microbes is vast because they act on the wit, on the mind, on the heart and on the soul.

Unhappily our world has been going steadily toward materialism. This world of ours is much more interested in trying to heal the physical or economic wounds than it is interested in trying to heal the moral or intellectual wounds.
When we discussed the other bill on crime comics I received a number of letters and requests from my county asking me to support this kind of bill, and asking me to do my utmost to oppose any spreading of those crime comics. I am sure that all these associations in my county would use the same words, and stronger words perhaps, to tell me that I should come back and support any move toward stopping the spreading of this obscene and pornographic literature. That is what I am doing this afternoon. I am sure that the farmers' associations of Deschambault, Cap Sante, Les Ecureuils, St. Marc des Carrieres and Ville Montmorency would be ready to support me in my contention, this afternoon as they did when I spoke on the crime comics bill.
It has been said this afternoon that a committee of this kind sat in the Senate last year. I doubted that I could quote any words used in that committee, but after consultation I was told that I could quote from the minutes of evidence given there, which I shall now do. I notice that at the first meeting of this special committee on the sale and distribution of salacious and indecent literature testimony was given by Father Gay. He was the representative of a religious organization in the diocese of Ottawa. I should like to be permitted to quote a few words of his testimony given under his first heading "Moral standards" and his second "The intellectual standards". Father Gay had this to say:
The law (section 207 of the Criminal Code) also aims at magazines usually featuring provocative nudes and carrying erotic articles.
But it does not aim at magazines, reviews or books, which, incidentally, include the odd voluptuous description or lewd picture, or which are known as "vulgar".
Nor, as a rule, do art publications come under the ban. But they should display authentic art and there should be no doubt that it was not the intention of perverting which prompted the publisher's choice. Moreover, they are not meant for children.
If that is obscenity, is it exaggerated to state that one-third of all magazines sold in Canada are obscene?
Evidently, it is an easy task to publish and to sell magazines appealing to man's lower instincts. It is a much more difficult one to produce a wholesome and interesting magazine.
He is quite right in saying that. I continue:
Retailers who try to go against the current are carried away by what one might call the magazine trust; they are not free to make their own choice and their conscience protests.
Obscene Literature
Then there is the effrontery of those who republish, in Canada, pocket books whose entry into this country is forbidden by the Department of National Revenue. That is nothing but cynicism.
The hon. senators' attention should also be drawn to those "novelties" imported from Japan or elsewhere; these are often indecent.
Under his second heading dealing with intellectual standards he had this to say:
We must not be content with supervision and control; that is a purely negative approach. On the contrary we must make it a point to give publishers and their collaborators an exact idea of the lines along which they must work to renovate and make more wholesome published material of all kinds.
To achieve this end Father Gay made the following suggestions:
(1)	Illustrations and text should respect science and natural history, and not be altogether contrary to verisimilitude. This desirable result can be achieved through intelligent effort much more than by force, by tending to dignifled and unselfish ends, far removed from vulgarity and coarseness, from scenes of horror and torture, in the description of a peaceful and honest life.
(2)	Characters should be endowed with a minimum of psychological verisimilitude; they should not be mere robots.
(3)	Human life should be respected. The guilty parties should be punished by due process of law, and not by the whim and fancy of the hero. Tracking down the villain should not be a sport but an ideal.
(4)	Dishonest persons should evoke pity or contempt, never sympathy.
(5)	The text should be well written so as to bring the child to turn, little by little, from comics to books.
(6)	The general tone of magazines should be optimistic and pleasant.
These are the suggestions he makes with respect to moral standards as well as intellectual standards. In quoting Father Gay I am quoting a man who has been giving more than second thought to the whole problem of morality, which is the real problem in this particular situation with the spreading of morally obscene and pornographic literature. Then there is the evidence of Mrs. Gould, a lady who appeared before the Senate committee. I find at pages 43 and 44 she was questioned by Senator David, and that the discussion ensued in this way:


Hon.   Mr. David@: Well, what have been the
reports of the teachers in the schools as far as the influence of these books, radio programs and the rest, is concerned?


Mrs. Gould:: I would say, from my own personal viewpoint, I feel that since I was a teen-ager and a young person growing up, we have degenerated, and to a great extent. I really believe that.


Hon.   Mr. David@: Do you put the fault on the insanity of the century in which we live, or the insanity of the home itself?


David Gourd: You are asking me personally now? Hon. Mr. David: I am asking you personally.


David Gourd: That is, just my personal opinion? Hon. Mr. David: Yes.


David Gourd: Well, I will put it down to the decay, or the insanity of this age we are living in; secondly-and I hope I won't be sued for this-

Obscene Literature
bo the laxity of the government to find out and make certain that the customs department is conducted in such a manner that these things cannot be brought in from other countries. I also would put it down to laxity on the part of our parents- a lot of the parents-certainly not the teachers, but a lot of the parents, and I would not blame them too much, because of the strain of two world wars coming so close together, and the need of mothers, in order to make ends meet, going out to supplement the family funds to keep body and soul together. Of necessity these mothers, with the fathers overseas, had to leave the children to secondary care, to the care of others who certainly would not have such personal interest. I think every one of us is to blame to some extent for what has been allowed to happen, and I believe that every one of us some day will be held responsible if anything happens to our youth.
From that testimony I conclude that Mrs. Gould was telling the Senate committee that the problem is one for the individual; that it is not only a problem for the government, not only a problem for the different associations gathering force to fight the spread of obscene literature, but that chiefly it is the problem of the individual to look into the matter, to face it, and to try to solve it to the satisfaction of his. own conscience.
Then I have here the testimony of Miss Charlotte Whitton, as it is reported: at pages 57 and 58 of the proceedings. Appearing before the committee Miss Whitton said this, speaking of the spread of this kind of literature in some provinces of Canada:
I may say that one part of the more detailed knowledge which led to my more determined interest in the matter was gathered in the trial through which I passed in the province of Alberta in 1947 and 1948. The charge of conspiracy to libel, which was levelled against the editor of "New Liberty" and the publisher, and against myself as providing the basis of the story in question, brought into evidence there material which I think would be of value to this committee in regard to the tight control of the distribution of periodical literature.
She is speaking here about the control of that kind of literature.
I suggest that you might apply to-I imagine it would be-the registrar of the supreme court of Alberta for that evidence, because it showed how the avenues of distribution were controlled and in fact dictated right down into the smallest villages in which books or periodicals were sold at all. It also showed that right from the lakehead roughly to the Pacific coast there were only about-if I recall correctly-either five or six outlets. The area was zoned. For instance, if a dealer in Wetaskiwin, Alberta, were carrying so many of one of our own monthly magazines, so many of our fortnightlies, so many of our weeklies, and were carrying different United States periodicals, weeklies, all of a reputable character, then he must handle a certain proportion of what we would call undesirable literature and a very large proportion of pulp magazines.
Miss Whitton says, in effect, that the government has to be most careful. Listening to the minister a few moments ago I noted that he had written to all the attorneys general of the different provinces of Canada. On that

account, the attorneys general in Canada- and this is my personal view-should give more than a second thought to the matter, and should do their utmost to help in the observation of the provisions of the Criminal Code by dealing with the distribution of this literature. They should attempt to stop the underhanded process of distribution which places this filthy literature in the hands of our people, provided that the interests of the dealers are protected in their sale of reputable publications. The dealer should have the right to suspend the sale of certain books from his store.
That is one part of the problem to which Miss Whitton made special reference. Then I have here the publication of the Saskatchewan library advisory council. This document is dated November 25, 1946, and in it is set out a division of the kinds of undesirable periodical literature. I place this on Hansard, not through any desire to stand in the House of Commons and speak, but because I wish to place before hon. members certain facts in connection with this problem.
This document describes the different types of undesirable periodical literature as follows:
(1)	Salacious and pornographic literature.
(2)	Low-grade fiction magazines specializing in love, crime and western stories. (Sometimes called "pulp magazines".)
(3)	Confession magazines.
(4)	Movie magazines.
(5)	Comic strip books.
In the same brief I find an opinion set out in the Chicago Daily News in 1940, as quoted in the Journal of Educational Psychology for December 1944, at pages 193 and 194. It states:
Badly drawn, badly written, and badly printed, a strain on young eyes and young nervous systems- the effect of these paper-pulp nightmares is that of a violent stimulant. Their crude blacks and reds spoil the child's natural sense of colour; their hypodermic injections-
And he is quite right in saying that.
__of sex and murder make the child impatient with
better though quieter stories . . . The shame lies largely with the parents who don't know and don't care what their children are reading. It is with the unimaginative teachers who force stupid, dull twaddle down eager young throats and, of course, it lies with the completely immoral publishers of the "comics"-guilty of a cultural slaughter of the innocents.
If there are quotations which deal with the wax-like minds of our children, there are others which I cannot support because they express the kind of philosophy-I shall not say I hate it, because one must not hate anything-but the kind of philosophy I am always ready to fight against. Dr. Lauretta Bender of the psychiatric division of Bellevue

Obscene Literature
hospital and the New York University medical school has this to say:
Normal well-adjusted children with active minds, given insufficient outlets or in whom natural drives for adventure are curbed, will demand satisfaction in the form of some excitement.
That is the opinion of Freud, a man who has had great influence in modern times.
Their desire for blood and thunder is a desire to solve the problems of the threats of blood and thunder against themselves or those they love, as well as the problem of their own impulses to retaliate and punish in like form.
I do not agree with that way of looking at the minds of our children. I admit that this problem is most difficult to solve, and it will demand the co-operation of all men of good will. But I believe I am right in saying that the problem is one of the reeducation of the individual. Of course the law can help, different organizations dealing with that kind of danger can help, but I repeat that it is a matter of the re-education of the individual. That is what we need first and above everything else. The law will help, the various associations of educators, parents and social workers will help a great deal, but they must focus their attention not only on the different ways of checking the printing and distribution of obscene literature, but on the betterment of the individual both on the intellectual and moral levels.
Most of the time the failure is not to be found in the law but in the lawbreaker. Hence the necessity of enacting a law against this kind of literature that will be airtight. The law against immoral literature or motion pictures can never be too severe because the mind of the individual is more precious than the profits of the publishers or producers, or the taxes or duties these flourishing businesses may bring into the public treasury.
The country should have very conscientious censors. I am not ready to say that we should not have censors, that we should rely entirely on the Criminal Code to prevent the ill effects of this kind of literature. The law can help, but there must be something done outside of the law because, as I repeat, there will always be lawbreakers. So we should have conscientious censors whose philosophy of life is something better than that of giving priority to sex influences or denying the rational difference between right and wrong, between good iand evil.
When discussing another matter in this house I was asked what it was that told me what was good and what was evil. Something tells me what is good and what is evil; I do not need any law to tell me that. But
everything possible must be done for the betterment of the individual on the moral and intellectual levels of our Canadian society. That is why I say that if we have some body or organization controlling the spread of this type of literature it should be, as we say in French, trier sur le volet.
Our world of today has lost or at least forgotten the necessity of having a moral standard. Material values have priority over intellectual and moral values. As the world is composed of individuals, if we are to correct these conditions we must start with the individual. There is no doubt that the producers of filthy literature envisage the profits they expect to make as being above everything else. They are directed by a certain amount of psychology, and give to their readers what they want. They are oblivious to the moral dangers their books are bound to create and develop to the point of disaster. All they want is financial success. They cynically display immorality in their books. If I were speaking on the subject of modern philosophy I would gladly express the same ideas and give the same warning. It is astonishing to realize to what extent obscene literature cohabits with the philosophical theories I mentioned previously.
When these people are cornered by sound reason they reply that it is progress, that our world is no longer bound by medieval taboos, and they continue in their foolish way. Patriotism is likely to suffer as much as moral values if we do not wake up to the danger ahead. Will loose morality, which believes that anything is right provided one is not caught, make for a strong, disciplined and stable nation? Will pornographic literature develop devotion and sacrifice for the welfare of our compatriots and the grandeur of our nation? It cannot, because this kind of intellectual food debases human beings. Our people must look always higher and higher if they are to stick to their ideals.
The problem is a hard one to solve, but it can be solved if all those of good will are ready to go to work immediately. In reading a book by Monsignor Fulton Sheen I found something in the beautiful pages he has written that I should like to place on the record. He understands the problem of the modern world. He sees the problem exactly where it is, in the individual. Here is what he says:
The repeated use of the word "crisis" in reference to morals is interesting, for it reveals a tendency on the part of many modern writers to blame the abstract when the concrete is really at fault. They speak, for example, of the problems of crime, rather than of the criminal; of the problems of poverty, rather than of the poor, and of the crisis in morals, when really the crisis is amongst men who are not living morally. The crisis is not in ethics but in the

Obscene Literature
unethical. The failure is not in the law, but in the lawbreakers. The truth of this observation is borne out by the failure of such writers to distinguish between the problems of making men conform to standards and that of making standards conform to men. Instead of urging men to pass the test, they alter the test. Instead of inspiring them to hold to their ideals, they change their ideals. In accordance with this logic, they urge that morals be changed to suit those who cannot live morally, and that ethics be changed to please those who cannot live ethically. All this takes place in accordance with the democratic principle of certain philosophers who are prepared to construct any kind of philosophy that man desires.
I repeat that some kinds of philosophy and pornographic literature cohabit together very easily. Monsignor Sheen continues:
If men want ghosts, the democratic philosophers, who know the will of the populace, will write a philosophy justifying ghosts; if the man in the street wants to follow the line of least moral resistance, philosophers will develop for him the justifying philosophy of "self-expression"; if the man of affairs has no time for the thoughts of eternity then philosophers develop for him the philosophy of space-time. There are ultimately only two possible adjustments in life.
One evidently is good and the other bad. Monsignor Sheen continues:
One is to suit our lives to principles; the other is to suit principles to our lives. If we do not live as we think, we soon begin to think as we live.
May I add that if the population reads obscene or pornographic literature it soon thinks that way. The problem is well stated by Monsignor Sheen. The individual is to be changed and made better. The situation calls for more than law, more than the gathering of these organizations to which I referred before. It calls for a regular and real crusade of men and women of good will. If we win the victory the effects will be far-reaching, and peace in the mind of the individual will inevitably bring peace in society and in the world.
The effect of the discussion this afternoon and the effect of the barring of this literature to the Canadian public will be far-reaching, because it will bring peace in the individual, in society and in the world. I think we should do everything possible to help those who want to set to work to stop the spreading of the moral and intellectual microbes which develop and create wounds a lot deeper than the physical wounds that medical men are trying so ardently to cure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few comments on the resolution, I think perhaps I am motivated chiefly by two reasons. First of all, I want to do anything I can to support the resolution of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), to whom I think the members of this house owe a great deal for having brought this matter up, just as a few

years ago he brought up a somewhat kindred subject. Incidentally, I draw attention to the terms of his resolution which are not rigid or inflexible. I am sure that his whole attitude on the whole question is flexible.
Perhaps my second and biggest reason for wanting to say a word is an incident that happened last summer when I was making calls in my constituency. The mother of some teen-age children spoke to me about this question, and she practically extracted a promise from me that if the matter ever arose I would have something to say about it. Therefore I am going to have something to say today.
It is an advantage, I think, that by no stretch of the imagination can this be a partisan or party question; and while we get a certain amount of relaxation out of the cut and thrust of party questions it is also a satisfaction for the moment to be able to relax and feel that we are all concentrating on the matter single-mindedly.
Of course it is true, as the minister implied-I do not know whether he actually used these words-that there is not enough initiative throughout the rank and file of our citizens to set the law in motion. I was reading that great lawyer, Dicey, the other day, and he points out that the difficult thing is not so much to get measures on the statute books as to devise the method of enforcing them. I make one suggestion. We are apt to take these things rather lackadaisically, but I am quite sure that if I could fill this house with the parents of teen-age children we would not be lackadaisical about it. I am quite sure that if by some magic we could make the parents of teen-age children the censors of this kind of thing, an enormous amount of this sort of literature would disappear overnight.
The minister has said that the legislation is all right, and I must confess that I found myself rather persuaded by his suggestion that the definition itself, the key words of which are "a tendency to deprave and corrupt", was not a bad one. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that, however readily we accept the view of the minister that the legislation is all right, we only need to go to a railway newsstand to realize that the law might as well not be on the statute books, or virtually so. I know that in one way that is not the responsibility of this house. Our criminal law can be set in motion by the law officers of the provinces and by individual initiative. I know something about that, and I know therefore that in a way the minister has an alibi.
I want to say also that I am sure the minister is just as keen to remedy the situation

as the rest of us are. However, the fact remains that the evil is there, and the hon. member for Kamloops indicates to me that the bulk of this kind of literature is growing. Since the debate began I got in touch with some library authorities, and my conversation was both depressing and in a sense reassuring. I found what were to me some rather astounding figures about the kind of literature that is read by little children. As shown in the review to which I was referred, 95 per cent of boys and 91 per cent of girls from six to eleven read twelve to thirteen comic books per month. I am not suggesting this is filthy literature, but I am suggesting it is trivial literature which cannot possibly do them any good, which must distract their minds, and of course it keeps good literature away from them. That is the other side of it.
In the ages from twelve to seventeen 87 per cent of the boys and 81 per cent of the girls read twelve to thirteen comic books per month. Apparently as we grow older we grow a little wiser and we do read less of such literature. At the same time it was reassuring to be told by the librarian that due to the work of home and school clubs and other such organizations the reading of better books is increasing. That is the experience of the Ottawa library, and that was reassuring.
I come back now to the resolution and to one practical point that has struck me this afternoon, and which I want to put to the minister. I am not very well informed about this matter and if the minister wishes to correct me at any point I shall be very glad. I gather from what I have learned this afternoon and from what the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) tells me that actually, though various references were made to censorship as if it were an unspeakable thing which we could not have-and I know it is full of difficulties-we have virtual censorship, or are supposed to have, of this kind of thing coming in from the United States. The minister does not correct me, so I go on.
If that is so, then it seems to me we have accepted the principle of censorship to a degree. The only question is whether we are going to have good or bad censorship. I am told that the censorship on this literature coming in from the United States-and I want to use moderate words-is, to put it mildly, ineffective. I am told that it is ineffective for two reasons. First, if you come to one customs office and they show some signs of not letting it in, you just take it along to another and it gets through there. I am told, and I have no reason to doubt it, that the administration is not very tight. I do not know whether it rivals the orgies of
Obscene Literature
cigarette smuggling that we were told about, but there is a lot of smuggling in that sense of this kind of literature. I am also told that we have not taken the business of censorship seriously in that we have not sought to have people who might be considered by education and experience to be capable. We have not taken pains to get that kind of person in the censoring business.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know how difficult censorship is. I read the statement of a United States judge to whom some allegedly obscene books had been submitted. He dismissed the charge and practically said-and I want to paraphrase or summarize it fairly -that in matters of obscenity it is a matter of rugged individualism; that you could not have a standard. I think that is not an unfair summary of what he said. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that. We look back to the Victorian era, which we now hold up as a travesty of common sense. We look back to what we regard as a very silly procedure where they even swathed the legs of the piano. As I say we have been building a travesty of it; nevertheless, while we have moved a long way forward materially from that era, I wonder if we have moved a long way forward in others. I wonder if we have not created a vacuum which this utterly worthless literature fills while serious literature is so often wanting.
I come back to the resolution, Mr. Speaker, and my statement which I believe to be true. As I said, anyone who goes into a railway station and sees what is there is offended beyond words. I would leave it to any group of censors appointed in this house to go tc one of those railway newsstands, and I venture to say that it would soon look like the shelves of the library, empty after the fire, by the time they were through, and there would not be much difference of opinion among them. Certainly that would be sc if my friends, the parents of adolescenl children, were allowed to go in there. Carrie Nation used to smash up saloons with hei axe, but she would not be a patch on whal they would do.
I have talked perhaps rather vehementlj about this, but I feel strongly about it. ] also feel strongly about the difficulties, as ] do about the problem. I say again that I arc sure there is not a man in this house more interested in the matter than the minister but I do feel that somehow those in re sponsible positions ought to be in a bettei position to say how a public opinion whicl will support the law is to be created.
I hope the minister, either today or oi some other occasion, will say somethin; about this question of censorship, because w( have it. Apparently we have a worthless o:

Obscene Literature
almost worthless censorship; and I am asking why, if we have accepted the principle of censorship, we should not have good censorship. Why should we not take a lot of trouble about it? It is full of difficulties, I know. You have the intellectuals who come in and try to dispose of the matter by saying that we should have no censorship of any kind. Well, I will face the intellectuals. I will not necessarily answer them on their level but in-


Mr. Fraser:: Army language.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We do not
use that in parliament here, although we have all read about swearing like the army in Flanders, and no doubt the soldiers were very proficient in that line. However, I come back just to repeat that I do not believe anyone in this house would deny that there is a problem which cries out to be dealt with. It is not satisfactory to say that nothing can be done and that we must just wait for a year or two while lawyers argue the question in the Supreme Court of Canada.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my viewpoint on this bill. I am heartily in support of any effort to improve the literature in this dominion. I feel that any support we can give this bill should be given, although I realize the difficulty of enforcing an act requiring booksellers to refuse to stock obscene literature. At the same time I think we could start by cleaning our own house.
The most obscene literature that comes to my desk comes from the other place in the form of divorce evidence. I think if we are sincere in this we should be quite honest about it and cut that out. Nothing sold in any bookstore in this or any other town equals that evidence under the term of obscene literature. If we are sincere in this let us enforce the act and provide good books for the youngsters who are now being satisfied with this type of trash.
For fourteen or fifteen years I was chairman of the Okanagan union library, and we have developed a circulation covering several hundred square miles, including numerous towns and villages. At the present time we have 96 outlets for our books, in schools, libraries and by van. I found that as we were able to get money to purchase more books the children took more and more of them jut. However, we find difficulty in meeting ligher costs of books for the larger number jf outlets. From time to time we have sought assistance from the various governments, but ;hey are reluctant to assist libraries of this ;ype. I do feel that the dominion government should enter into the field of supplying good

literature to the people of Canada-both adults and children-by subsidizing any well-established library that is endeavouring to give this service.
Instead of trying to change children by closing an avenue for certain books, let us give them an opportunity to get good books.
I believe the day has come when the federal government must subsidize, through the provincial governments, municipalities or district libraries, a system of that nature to replace what is a growing menace to the minds of our young people in Canada. If we do not do anything we shall stand condemned as being indifferent to their thought processes during their teen-age or younger years.
I do not like to take your time to deal with what I have in mind regarding subsidies, but I think you all realize that in smaller areas and rural areas where the taxes for libraries are based on the land, they are objecting to that tax. The objection is not so much that it is for the libraries but because the land, especially in British Columbia, is already bearing too heavy a burden. For that reason I would ask the ' national library or the government of Canada to provide books in large quantities-children's books, good books-and circulate them on loan through rural and urban libraries, allowing for distribution among the children. They would then be the censors and they would be filling a gap that needs to be filled if we are to prevent the distribution of obscene literature.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Like the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate because of a vital interest in this topic. For the past few years this matter has been discussed among groups of young people with whom I have met, and I am under an obligation that whenever there was an opportunity in this chamber to discuss the subject I would try to present my personal viewpoint. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) for providing this opportunity this afternoon, because the resolution deals with a pertinent problem in our dominion at the present time.
There have been various attempts during the discussion, which has been quite dispassionate and objective, to place the responsibility for a situation that is all too obvious. We need only look at the bookstands and newspaper stands in our own communities to be aware of the fact that there is a problem. Various speakers this afternoon endeavoured to place the responsibility for this situation. Speaking in broad terms, I believe

the situation arises from the fact that it is possible to commercialize the publication of pornographic literature today. There is a market for that literature, and as long as there is a market of course there will be authors, publishers, distributors and retailers who will be interested in exploiting the market. If I might generalize, I think I would place the responsibility directly on the purchaser, because it is the purchaser who provides the market for this type of literature.
It is a long-established truism that biographies of sinners have always tended to be better sellers than the biographies of saints. Judging by the tremendous turnover in obscene literature and pulp magazines of the pornographic variety, it would seem that a great many people want it that way. They are willing to buy; they are interested in the subject; and they are willing to pay the necessary price for that type of literature. This afternoon we have been dealing largely with the difficulty which arises when this literature becomes available to children and adolescents. From my knowledge of the limited financial resources of this age group it would seem that they are not the chief offenders in creating the demand. I believe it is the purchaser on the adult level who provides the financial stimulus necessary to enable this business to continue quite profitably.
In Maclean's magazine a few months ago there was the biography of one of the more prolific writers in this field of popular fiction, a person by the name of Mickey Spillane. I was interested in the article because Maclean's is a reputable publication and always presents a factual case. I was surprised to discover that some 7 million copies of the Spillane type of murder mystery had been sold on the North American continent. Canada would, of course, be part of that market. One can see the Spillane type of murder mystery, as it is called, on every newsstand, and in almost every instance it is a combination of lechery and violence. The bulk of the purchases of this type of literature is not made by children or adolescents, but by the adult population. It would seem that a good many enjoy that type of escape from reality or that type of release from the confused situation in which they find themselves.
The very fact that there are 7 million readers-and no doubt a greater number have since become fans of the Mickey Spillane novels-would tend to suggest that some of the statements made by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) are correct. What we find confronting us today is a tendency toward a moral breakdown, a failure to distinguish between what is good and what is bad so far as literary values are concerned.
Obscene Literature
In so far as children are concerned, and adolescents who are still dependent upon the home and other social institutions, this problem would be no problem at all if those institutions were exercising the control that they have traditionally exercised. The very fact that moral standards have tended to become dim in the confusion and complexities of modern civilization would suggest that these basic social institutions have lost some of their control over the young people in our society. When I speak of "decline in our moral standards", I mean there is a failure to an increasing degree to distinguish the principles by which we judge behaviour to be either right or wrong.
Arising then from the problem of the market available for this type of literature, it seems to me that the solution put forward in the resolution by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has some validity. I am particularly interested when he speaks of a joint committee of both houses of parliament being set up for the purpose of studying and recommending legislation or other measures. I like the idea of "other measures" perhaps better than recommending legislation. Then the increasing volume of filthy literature circulated in Canada could be dealt with effectively but without, at the same time, improperly restricting the freedom of the press or genuine literary or artistic expression.
The very fact that this discussion has taken place here this afternoon will create an awareness among those who should accept responsibility in this regard. For example, take the recently established organizations existing in a good many of our schools across Canada, the parent-teachers associations. If they were to get hold of the significance and magnitude of this problem it would not be very long before they began to take some positive and constructive action to remedy the situation. I am sure the publicity given to this matter will create such an awareness in places where it does not already exist. Because of the complex nature of the society in which we live, there are all sorts of things going on almost under our noses of which we are not aware until they are actually brought to our attention by someone who is a little more observant, someone who has a keener appreciation of his social and community responsibilities.
In bringing my remarks to a close, I commend the hon. member for Kamloops for providing this opportunity to discuss the subject. I would suggest that once the problem is brought to the attention of those institutions or groups responsible in every part of Canada, it could be dealt with successfully on the local community level. If it

Obscene Literature
goes to a committee, as is suggested in the resolution, and receives further airing and discussion, and if a real awareness of the difficulty is established, then the particular problem that has received the greatest emphasis this afternoon-namely, that of children and adolescents being exposed to obscene literature-will to a large extent wither away.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaiie (Skeena):: What brings me into this debate this afternoon is a reference made by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), and some extracts read from the evidence given by Mayor Whitton. There is in my home town a small newsstand, the name of which I have no intention of mentioning here for fear of possible repercussions against it later. I was approached by the proprietor of that little newsstand last summer and he was discussing this question of the sale of various types of what might be called undesirable literature. He informed me, as was stated by the hon. member for Portneuf, that if he wished to obtain a reasonable supply of what he considered were the desirable magazines, a sufficient supply to serve his regular customers, he also had to take so many hundreds of pounds of various types of intellectual tripe.
A lot of the material he would be compelled to take in order to qualify for his quota of better literature was not necessarily pornographic, filthy or illegal, though some of it most likely was. If it is the situation that, in order to get a supply of magazines class A, a retailer has to accept and pay for a given quantity of magazines class B, that is something or other in restraint of or in control of private enterprise. It should be investigated, and most thoroughly investigated, I respectfully submit, by the Department of Justice, and that soon; because I believe that situation is responsible for some, if not all, of the sale of the material which is objected to in the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Kamloops.
I must say I have some sympathy for the small businessman who finds himself in that position, who cannot make a working profit and pay for the junk out of the profits he will get from the better class of material, and therefore in self-defence has to display and dispose of the less desirable types of literature.
I have not the slightest doubt that if that situation exists it is going to be pretty difficult to ferret out, because the people who are in business in a big way are by no means ignorant as to how to conceal what they are doing, and those who depend upon them

for their supplies, which means those who depend upon them for their livelihood-I refer to the little retailer-may have some difficulty in producing the necessary evidence upon which to found a case.
With reference to the meat of the hon. member's resolution, in this case I find myself in agreement with much of what has been said by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), and I presume that means much of what has been said by the hon. member for Greenwood has merit. In particular he frankly admitted the difficulties in solving what is equally frankly a problem.
The first question that comes to my mind, and which I think has been discussed in a great many homes and a great many other forums, is what is filthy; what is obscene; what is pornographic?
One hon. member, whose name I have forgotten, referred to the evidence before the Senate divorce committees as being this type of filth or pornographic literature. Well, I am wondering. That is a factually documented report, published without the slightest effort being made to make it palatable, to make it good reading. It is just about as sensational, it is just about as attractive, from my point of view, as a medical book on some branch of obstetrics might be, yet it is not desirable reading. It is not the type of thing that the average parent would supply to a twelve-year-old child. Nevertheless it is doubtful whether anyone would say that publication of that particular material should be made illegal.
I honestly believe that if we took all the members of this house of one political group -I do not care which-we could produce to them certain types of doubtful literature and find that some would regard it as pornographic and illegal and worthy of suppression, while others would regard it as of no importance at all. There is of course no question that certain types of material are definitely pornographic, flagrantly so, while others are not. But there is this dividing line somewhere, and the whole crux of the question is that nobody can agree just where it is.
Then I think the question has been somewhat bemused this afternoon with the addition of a great many references to what is intellectually desirable. I think it was the hon. member for Greenwood who described it as trivial and worthless. I feel-and I do not know that I am too much of a highbrow- that a great deal of the material which is now being sold in bookstores and other places is trivial and is intellectual tripe; but I would not have the slightest excuse for suggesting that it was immoral or should be

made illegal. Perhaps it is a fair comparison to say that there are a lot of very cheap candies on sale which do not do the children who buy them any good and which do not do them any harm, except that when they are taking these cheap and worthless candies they are filling their little stomachs with stuff which will do them much less good than if they were getting good fresh fruit, or something of that sort. In other words, it may not do them any positive harm, but it is keeping out the possibility of doing a certain amount of positive good. If you were to carry that analogy further down the line of course you would come to the material which would actually poison the child, and we are dealing now with the material which will poison the minds not the reading of which is just a very silly waste of time.
Then there is the other question. Perhaps I am a little bit old-fashioned. I am not one of those-at least I do not think I am

who rush in to the defence of advanced thought along most any line except of course political; but we have to be just a little careful that in our discussion of this or any other similar matter we do not decide that the stage at which we have arrived, you and I, is the ultimate; that because we have said, or have decided in our own minds, that this is good and that is bad, you shall not go any farther; that this decision, like the law of the Medes and Persians, can never be changed.
I wonder if I may be permitted to use an example that I know full well is a most dangerous one. There are in the house and country hundreds of thousands of people who are quite morally convinced that anything dealing with free information on the subject of birth control is absolutely immoral. There are also in this country, and most likely in the House of Commons, a great number of people who are quite firmly and morally convinced that the advocacy of birth control is something which is morally right and, some people think, morally desirable. I am not going to say who is right; that is not the question before us. The point is that there can be very firm convictions held by very decent people as to what is right and what is wrong; yet the convictions of one group can be anathema to the other group.
That brings me to an observation made by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier). He was dealing with the possibility of some form of censorship or control, and his words as I took note of them were: "The law can never be too severe". That is something with which I cannot agree, because 1 think conceivably it could be. If the law were imposed by a group of intellectuals
Obscene Literature
whose views were different from mine, I would then be of the opinion that the law was too severe. A form of control based upon what we are led to believe was the official thinking of the Puritans on the North American continent, in the early days, might be acceptable to some in this country and quite unacceptable to others. Yet both groups might be perfectly decent and Christian, and equally sincere.
If I remember correctly it was the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) who made what I believe, thus far, has been the only positive approach to the subject. All the rest of us have been talking from the negative viewpoint, stating that something should be forbidden. While I do not undertake at the moment to offer my support to the hon. member's suggestion, the fact is that he did make one concrete and positive suggestion as to the manner in which the problem might be met.
I think all of us have been thinking in terms that are purely negative. The solution facing us at the moment would appear to me -and conceivably I could be wrong-to be that we are going to have decisions as to what is or what is not to be sold made either by some board of censors or under the Criminal Code. I do not think anyone will claim that, to date, the results in the criminal courts have been satisfactory. I lay part of the blame where I placed it when I began these observations, namely on the situation which I believe exists as between distributors and retailers. But we are told by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) today that we may expect a good deal from the disposition of a case now under appeal.
I am afraid of a board of censors. Quite frankly I am afraid of anyone undertaking to tell me what shall be my standards in respect of morals or decency. I would be afraid to place the matter under the control of a board of censors which, if it wished, could tell us that the statue of Venus de Milo is indecent and immoral, and that every reproduction of it should be removed. Then, if it went too far the other way, quite conceivably it could continue to permit the importation and sale in this country of some things which would be offensive to a great majority of the people.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Yes; but I am not an
expert, and I could not guarantee the answer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the remark the hon. member has just made indicate that he would favour doing away

Obscene Literature
with censorship or quasi-censorship such as I understand exists through the customs, against this kind of literature?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If any alternative solution at all can be found within the Criminal Code or elsewhere my present answer would be yes. I was just going to deal with that. I do not believe that any group of individuals, whether set up as a board of censorship under a provincial government or whether it be a branch of the Department of National Revenue, or whether it be set up under some new act of parliament, should decide what shall and what shall not be literature.
I do not believe any such board of censors could come to a decision that would meet with the approval-I do not say the pleasure -of the majority of people in this country; because I do firmly hold the view that the standards and tastes of all of us vary to such an extent that no 20 people, or no 262 people, can say what is or what is not going to be effective. They must draw the line somewhere, putting things on one side or on the other.
There is only one alternative solution that I can see. It may not be perfect, and I know that there are weaknesses in it. The alleged crime would have to occur, followed by a decision by jurists. If they came to a conclusion that just looking at a picture would have an immoral effect, and that it should be removed, their decision would have to be respected. I know there are weaknesses in this alternative, in that a certain amount of damage is done before a decision is made. But, speaking as one individual who must choose between that and living under the jurisdiction of one or several boards of censors, I will choose the criminal court solution every time.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate because I have received several letters from people in my constituency. Then, a year ago samples of some books were sent to me. If I had my way and it were possible to have these objectionable books taken off the shelves of the bookstores in Canada, I would certainly have it done.
The books to which I have referred were received from a Christian lady. I gathered from her letter that she had read them. I read them, and having done so carried them over to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) who, I hope, in turn also read them. In this way we have gained firsthand knowledge of some of the vicious literature contained within the covers of these novels. I was not afraid the books would do the minister any

harm, because I felt his age and experience would protect him. I was sure they would not hurt him physically, mentally or morally.
If the appointment of a commission should be the right procedure in this matter, I would be in favour of it. On the other hand it occurs to me that a board of censors-and when I say this I realize I am disagreeing with the hon. member who preceded, me in the debate -might be the better alternative.
Any move to clear out this vicious literature and make it less easily obtainable by our young people is a move in the right direction. The vicious contents of this literature, the suggestive names the books carry and the luxurious pictures on their covers in my opinion are not good for the younger people of Canada. If this resolution is a move in the right direction I am in favour of it.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) upon his thorough preparation and presentation. This question of obscene literature does not alarm me so much today as it did two years ago, because I am told by booksellers that there is a greater demand today, not for literature dealing with the breaking of the seventh commandment but for a better type of book. There are many books dealing with the way a man can overcome his worries, how men and women can carry out their tasks in life and win the victory.
The writings of Lloyd Douglas are in great demand. He is an outstanding guide and helper. The demand today for his books and his type of literature is much greater than it was a few years ago. Dr. Norman Peel of New York is an outstanding writer who tells men and women how they can best overcome their worries and achieve a clean life. I have some pamphlets here which indicate the type of literature available. This indicates that there is inspiration everywhere; it tells us to let freedom reign, how to become secure in insecure times and so on. As our church leaders, our doctors, our teachers, our members of legislatures advertise these things through their own lives, the great call will not be for literature dealing with the breaking of the seventh commandment.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has said that there is enough legislation if it is enforced. I do not know whether this resolution will help, but if we can get something that will be enforced I think we should have it. In your prayer every day you say, "lead us not into temptation." If this committee were set up it might show the booksellers and those who would appear before it the

error of their ways, and they might wake up. You cannot make people good by passing resolutions or legislation; the change must be in their own hearts.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the comments of the various hon. members who have spoken on this important resolution. Members of the Social Credit group I believe will support the resolution. There is great difficulty in knowing just how to correct the problem which is involved. Everyone knows that for some strange reason obscenity seems to be increasing in the literature commonly available to people. How to stop that increase, how to take the necessary steps to restore the standards of high thinking which prevailed fifty years ago, is something which I think is beyond the average mind to conceive.
I can see no harm in calling a committee of this kind and having them devote a measure of attention to possible solutions of the problem. Whether or not any legislation would be based on their findings that would be of assistance, I would hate to say. But I do believe we ought to do everything we can. If we do not do everything we can to improve the moral attitude of the youth of our time and their elders, I think we shall stand condemned before those who follow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The motion is by Mr. Fulton. Before the motion is put, may I point out that I have modified it to read, "That in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the advisability of appointing a joint committee" rather than "the government should consider".


Mr. Cruickshank:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).
1218	HOUSE OF
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with the debate on the motion to set up a committee to examine into national defence expenditures. If we dispose of that motion to set up the committee we will take up the resolution relating to the

appointment of an associate minister of national defence, and then deal with the items in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson).


[Stage Direction]
It being fifteen minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 22, 1953