October 1, 1945


Mr. KNOWLES: (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

1. What was the peak number of workers during the 3var employed by MacDonald Bros. Aircraft Limited of Winnipeg (a) at its airport properties; (b) at Robinson street, and what was the period of said peak employment?

2. What -was the number employed ast both

(a) and (b) above as at the end of each month thus far this year?

3. How many former employees of MacDonald Bros. Aircraft Limited enlisted in the armed services, and how many of the same have secured reemployment with this firm?


1. Peak number of workers during the war employed by MacDonald Bros. Aircraft Limited of Winnipeg and period of said peak employment, (a) at its airport properties- 3,506 during January, 1944; (b) at Robinson street-1,157 during October, 1944.

2. Number of workers employed at end of each month thus far this year:

(a) at airport properties: January, 1,401; February, 1,092; March, 799; April, 804; May, 805; June, 711; July, 628; August, 273; (b) at Robinson street: January, 572; February, 482; March, 461; April, 448; May, 418; June, 400; July, 397; August, 132.

3. Number of former employees who enlisted in the armed services at airport properties, 521; at Robinson street, 376; total, 897.

Number of former employees who secured reemployment with this firm at airport properties, 20; at Robinson street, 15; total, 35.





Progressive Conservative

1. Has the Minister of National Defence received a request, from or on behalf of the Pacific coast militia rangers, that they be presented with, or permitted to purchase at a nominal price, the rifles they used during the war against Japan?

2. If so, vha.t action has been taken by the government in this matter?


Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of National Defence; Minister of National Defence for Naval Services)



Perhaps I may be permitted to answer this question verbally. The Minister of National Defence has received a great many requests from hon. members on this side of the house asking that the members of this force be allowed to retain their rifles or to purchase them for a nominal consideration. The force, as hon. members from British Columbia know, has rendered very valuable service. They served voluntarily and without pay. In some cases they were issued with service rifles and in some cases with sporting rifles, 30-30 carbines. The matter has been under consideration for some time. It was felt that for fairly obvious reasons they


could not be allowed to retain the service rifles; but I recommended a short time ago that they should be allowed to purchase the sporting rifles at a nominal price. I made that recommendation to my colleague, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, with a view to his passing it on to War Assets Corporation, and he agrees that that can be done. The details will now be worked out and arrangements made to allow them to purchase those rifles at a nominal price.




Mr. KNOWLES: (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

1. What is the total amount of money invested by the government in plant and equipment at the airport establishment of MacDonald Bros. Aircraft Limited, Winnipeg?

2. What is the total value of contracts awarded this firm during the course of the war?

3. On what basis were these contracts awarded?

4. What is the total amount of profit received by this firm on the contracts indicated above?

5. Is MacDonald Bros. Aircraft Limited at present working on any government contracts? If so, of what nature and what is their value?


Mr. HOWE: (Minister of Reconstruction; Minister of Munitions and Supply)


1. Airport, St. James, Man., $1,527,143.52; Robinson St. Plant, Winnipeg, Man., $196,530.72; total, $1,723,674.24.

2. Total sales, exclusive of sales tax, $20,872,957.99.

3. Contracts were awarded on "a fair and reasonable profit" basis the rate of profit to be determined by the minister after government audit.

4. Allowed costs, $19,405,977.09; amount of profit, $967,408.87; rate of profit, 4-9851 per cent; excess profit fully refunded to the government, $499,572.03.

5. No.





Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

1. How many vessels paid dues into the sick mariners' fund for each of the calendar years 1938, 1942 and 1944?

2. What was the total amount of money collected in dues from the vessels for each of the above years?

3. Has the sick mariners' fund any other source of income and if so, what amount was received by the fund from such source or sources in the calendar year 1944?

4. What was the total expenditure of the fund in each of the calendar years, 1938, 1942 and 1944?

5. What was the balance in the fund as at December 31, 1944?


Mr. CLAXTON: (Minister of National Health and Welfare)


1. There is no sick mariners' fund. Duty or dues collected under the authority of Part V of the Canada Shipping Act are credited to the

revenue account, consolidated revenue fund. The cost of treatment of sick mariners and of administration of Part V of the Act is charged to funds appropriated each year by Parliament. The total number of vessels which paid dues for the calendar years 1938, 1942 and 1944 were 3,720, 4,427 and 4,285, respectively.

2. 1938. $210,594.97; 1942, $276,373.64; 1944, $201,150.20.

3. There is no other revenue accruing to the government under the authority of part V of the Canada Shipping Act.

4. Total expenditures for the calendar year: 1938, $187,090.98; 1942, $349,593.77; 1944, $239,332.36.

5. See answer to No. 1.




William Irvine

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)


When is Mr. Adrian Arcand to be tried for alleged nazi activities prior to his internment in 1940?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: In view of the large number of inquiries that have come to the department with regard to this question I think I should read aloud the answer that is being made to the question.

The opinions of the deputy minister of justice and of Mr. Gerald Fauteux, K.C., special prosecutor, now tabled, are that it is not advisable that federal authorities proceed further with charges against Adrian Arcand based on his activities prior to his internment. I beg leave to table the opinions where the matter is discussed, and the reasons for the opinions are given. I am making a certain number of mimeographed copies of these opinions available to the gentlemen of the press. If any hon. member wishes to have a copy I shall be glad to furnish it.



In view of the public interest would it not be possible to put the opinions on Hansard? I do not know how long they are, but the minister says he has had a large number of requests for them.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have had a large number of inquiries. It covers five or six pages. I have no objection to its being printed as an appendix-



Make it part of the answer.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: -or making it part of the answer to the question.



I think that would be better.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Then with the consent of the house the opinions will be made part of the answer to the question.


I have considered the advisability of taking further criminal proceedings against Adrien Arcand, who in May, 1940, was charged, by way of indictment, under sections 39 and 39A of the defence of Canada regulations with having spread and published reports and statements intended or likely to cause disaffection or to be prejudicial to the safety of the state or the efficient prosecution of the war. Before the preliminary inquiry was completed and the accused could be committed for trial, the judge directed that the situation disclosed by the evidence should be brought to the attention of the attorney general of Quebec. The latter in turn communicated with the Minister of Justice, who, 'with a view to preventing Arcand from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state, directed that he should be detained, and he was so detained until July, 1945.

It may now be stated that Arcand was the recognized leader of an organization known as the national unity party, declared by the defence of Canada regulations to be illegal. The national unity party had objects and ideals very similar to those of the fascist and nazi parties, and there is evidence of some connecting link between members of those parties and Arcand.

Whether or not the national unity party had any real numerical strength or potential possibilities, the prompt action taken by the Minister of Justice effectively quelled the movement, and the purpose of Arcand and the misguided people whom he sought to influence wholly failed. There is no evidence that his activities or those of the party in fact did any injury or in the slightest degree prejudiced the successful prosecution of the war. My information is that since his release from internment Arcand has not been engaged in any political activity and no complaints have been received with reference to his conduct.

To the question whether further criminal proceedings should be taken against Arcand, the following observations of a legal nature would seem to be relevant:

First, responsibility for the prosecution of indictable offences rests with the provincial attorney general, and, while it would be open to federal authorities to proceed with the charges under the defence of Canada regulations with the object of having Arcand committed for trial, I would not advise this course without first consulting the attorney general of the province, since he must assume responsibility for the trial if the accused is committed.

Secondly, defence of Canada regulations 39 and 39A have been revoked, and, while such revocation does not relieve from liability a person who committed an offence prior to revocation, nevertheless in the case of such a stale offence as this the fact of revocation might be expected to affect the course of the trial.

Thirdly, the maximum sentence which could be imposed for the offences charged is five years' imprisonment. Arcand has already been subjected to confinement for a period in excess of five years.

Fourthly, a proposal to prosecute for a seditious offence under the criminal code would be subject to the same considerations as apply in the case of the charges under the defence of Canada regulations, namely, that the provincial attorney general would be responsible since the proceedings would be by way of indictment, and

that the offence is stale, and that the accused has already suffered a lengthy period of confinement.

Fifthly, Arcand could not be tried for treason for the reason that any such offence has long since been prescribed by statute. In this connection it should be remarked that the Treachery Act of Canada was only assented to on the 7th of August, 1940, after Arcand was interned, and so would not apply to Arcand's activities prior to internment.

Having regard to the foregoing, I would not advise that further criminal proceedings be undertaken by federal authorities, and in this respect I concur in the view recently expressed by Mr. Gerald Fauteux, K.C., who acted as crown prosecutor at the time the charge was laid against Arcand.

F. P. Vareoe,

Deputy Minister of Justice.

Copy :MJC:14:9:45 Fauteux and Mathieu Advocates

Gerald Fauteux, K.C.

Auguste Mathieu, K.C.

Transportation Building 132 St. James Street West Suite 420

Montreal, September 7, 1945.


Mr. F. P. Vareoe, K.C.,

Deputy Minister of Justice,


Re: Adrien Arcand, Jos. C. Farr et al -Further prosecutions.

Dear Mr. Vareoe,

I have examined the brief submitted for opinion, in relation with the above matter.

This brief, I understand, after a recent interview with Inspector C. W. Harvison of the R.C.M. Police is definitely a general outline ot the case, and cannot be taken as definite and exhaustive as far as evidence is concerned.

Furthermore, I had a conference yesterday, in Ottawa, with Mr. Robert Forsyth, K.C., of your department, with whom I discussed the matter, and who, I may say, agrees with the views which I now beg to express as follows:

1. The matter during the war:

In the spring of 1940, and as the result of the execution of a number of search warrants, truckloads of documents were seized in various places and in various provinces in Canada.

At that time, more than sufficient evidence was gathered to justify a prosecution under sections 39 and 39A of the defence of Canada regulations. And as a matter of fact, on the 29th of May, 1940, a number of warrants were issued for the arrest of the leaders of the so-called "national social Christian party" and "national unity party of Canada".

According to their own publications, their programme, I quote:

"in its main lines, and even in many details, is identical to the programme of the principal corporatist organizations of other countries:

"Fascists of Italy,

Nazis of Germany,

Cuzists of Rumania,

Francists of France,

Fascists of Great Britain,

Guardists of Australia,


Nara-ists of Poland,

Nationalists of Switzerland,

Gadja-ists of Yugoslavia,

Rexists of Belgium,

Fascists of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Portugal, etc." The procedures before the court were by way of indictment. In the course of the preliminary inquiry, the presiding judge, after the filing of a number of exhibits, interrupted the procedure, called the attorneys for the prosecution and the defence, for a short conference in his chamber, and immediately after resuming the procedures in court, declared that there was prima facie evidence of a conspiracy against the safety of the state, and suggested that the matter be immediately referred to the attorney general of the province; the inquiry was then adjourned to the following week. This action of the court brought no protests from the defence counsels, (sic)

Accordingly, the matter was immediately referred to the attorney general who, in turn, advised the then Minister of Justice of same and of the extension of the alleged conspiracy beyond the limits of the province of Quebec. An order for internment under section 21 of the D.O.C.R. followed.

The preliminary inquiry was then adjourned sine die.

Later, the question of prosecution for offences under the criminal code of Canada was considered. It was thought that any trial under circumstances then prevailing, would have possibly led to certain agitation and perhaps, and to an unmeasurable extent, defeated the very purpose which the defence of Canada regulations were meant to achieve.

The national emergency prevailing at that time could hardly be met otherwise than by emergency steps which, as stated, were immediately taken.

2. The matter since the cessation of hostilities:

I have been asked to express an opinion on the actual possibility of prosecutions.

For that purpose, I have considered the Treachery Act and the criminal code of Canada.

(a) With regard to the Treachery Act:

To supplement for the inadequacy of legis-ation on treason, Canada, like England, has adopted at the beginning of this war, the Treachery Act, 4 George VI, chapter 43. This act was assented to on the 7th of August, 1940, consequently after the internment of Arcand and others. The statute having no retroactive effect, cannot therefore have any application in the matter.

(b) The Criminal Code of Canada:

1. Treason and treasonable offences:

I cannot say that the activities of the above group could not reveal evidence of treason or treasonable offences. To express a final and definite opinion, as to a conviction without *doubt, would necessitate a more complete and minute examination of the mass of documents :seized.

The provisions of our code on treason and treasonable offences have their source in the English statute known as the Treason Act assented to in the year 1351, and are far from *suiting modern conditions.

Their enforcement is not, consequently, with

out difficulty.

For practical purposes, however, our Canadian law as well as the English law provide for a limitation of action, and in both countries, it has ahvays been and still is impossible to prosecute after three years.

Under such circumstances, prosecution for treason or treasonable offences cannot be entered.

2. Drilling:

Drilling was also in the programme of these organizations, and for that reason, provisions of section 99 were examined.

The operation of that section depends upon the existence of an order in council prohibiting training or drilling to the use of arms or for the purpose of practising military exercises, movements or evolutions. I am not aware of the existence of an order in council covering the case.

Be it as it may, these provisions are also subject to a limitation, under section 1140, paragraph "b", subparagraphs "i" and "ii".

In such eases, prosecution may be commenced within six months after the commission of the offence.

S. 133-

3. Seditious offences: S. 134-

I have also given consideration to the question of sedition. Of that, there is evidence. And in such matters, there is no limitation of action.

To decide whether it is in the best interest of Canada and particularly of justice to the accused as well, you may like to consider the exculpatory clause of section 133A-which I do not believe has, in fact, any application in the matter, but is, in law, nevertheless opened to the accused for their defence at trial-and also the fact that the maximum penalty for the offence is two years imprisonment, while the leaders of the movement have actually been deprived of their liberty for a period of five years, more or less.

Our legislation being inspired by the same principles of justice animating the English legislation, you may also consider that the leaders of a like movement in Great Britain, particularly Sir Oswald Mosley, have not been prosecuted after suffering internment.

Our penal laws operate by punishment, the purpose of -which is double, to wit: punishment to individuals and deterrent for other people.

In view of the length of internment which is more than twice the authorized maximum sentence for sedition, I doubt what more could be achieved in prosecuting for sedition.

And the judgment given by the civilized nations on the ideologies professed by these groups is and shall ever be far more impressive than a judgment of one of our local courts of Quebec or Ontario against a limited number of individuals Treasonably attracted by and promoting these now universally condemned ideologies and purposes.

It is again a timely question whether the publicity attached to trials by the will of the legislator, would not, in this case, be used to serve a purpose much beyond its true object.

Personally, and if I may be permitted to express an opinion as to the advisability of proceeding for sedition, I honestly believe that


the national interest and the Canadian justice would equally be served adequately by following the policy adopted in the very country from which flows our legislation in similar matters. Yours very truly,

Gerald Fauteux.


P.S.-I have been asked by phone, to further express my opinion on the possibility of a prosecution under sections 39 and 39A of the D.O.C.R. There is no doubt that in view of section 66 of the D.O.C.R., such prosecution can still obtain. I beg to draw your attention on paragraph 2 of section 39B affording a defence more or less similar as under section 133A of the Criminal Code.



Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):

Progressive Conservative

1. What buildings or other structures were erected during the war by the government at the plant of the Canadian Car & Foundry-Company Limited, Amherst, Nova Scotia?

2. What was the cost of each such building?

3. Were these buildings under lease to the company and, if so, for what period and at what rental charges?

4. Have any such buildings been offered for sale to the company' or to other parties, if so, state the price for each?

5. Is it proposed to offer these buildings for sale through War Assets Corporation or other agency of the government? If so, when?

6. Has the government and the company made proposals to lease any of these buildings for storage of naval supplies and equipment or other materials? If so, for what period and what rental charges?

7. Were the municipal authorities at Amherst consulted in regard to any proposals for sales or leases?


Mr. HOWE: (Minister of Reconstruction; Minister of Munitions and Supply)


1. The following buildings were erected during the war by the government at the plant of the Canadian Car & Foundry Company Limited, Amherst, Nova Scotia, and the cost was as follows: Aircraft overhaul depot,

$134,206.30; Guard house building, $2,953.00; Cafeteria building, $30,825.00.

2. Answered bv 1.

3. No.

4. Yes, to Canadian Car & Foundry Company Limited who intimated their desire to negotiate for the buildings and equipment. Another party has shown an interest in leasing the property with option to purchase. It would be prejudicial to the successful sale of this property to disclose the price offered or the negotiations in detail with either party.

5. It is not proposed at present to advertise these properties in the open market if a proper sale can be negotiated with the present occupants.

6. No proposals to lease for storage has been or will be considered until every effort has been made to sell or lease for industrial


7. No.





Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

1. Are persons detained to-day in alternative service work camps?

2. If so, what is the number?

3. What plans, if any, are going forward for the release of such persons?

4. What reasons are given for the continued detention of such persons?


Mr. MITCHELL: (Minister of Labour)


1. Yes.

2. 290.

3. It is kept constantly before the men who are occupying alternative service work camps that arrangements will be made to transfer them from the camp at once if they will agree to enter into a contract whereby they will be making contribution to the national welfare.

4. Their refusal to conform to those alternative service regulations under which they may be directed to employment other than

in camps.


October 1, 1945