May 9, 1950

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

STATEMENT AS TO EXTENSION OF SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS


On the orders of the day:


LIB

Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):

Yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) asked if the government had been requested to extend the date for the payment of supplementary benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. These benefits, by an amendment to the act approved at this session of parliament, were to lapse as of April 15.

I may say to the hon. gentleman that some municipalities did ask if the benefits could not be continued until a later date; I think May 31 was mentioned in one instance. However, we felt that we could not do this because of the special provision that had to be made to take care of the cost of the supplementary benefits up to April 15. We have also been watching the employment situation, and indications are that there are now increased opportunities for employment. As hon. gentlemen know, the act as amended provides for

supplementary benefits in future years, to those qualified, covering the period January 1 to March 31.

Our main efforts now are concentrated on getting men and women back into gainful employment.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   STATEMENT AS TO EXTENSION OF SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS
Permalink

COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA


The house resumed from Wednesday, May 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.


PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):

Mr. Speaker, when I moved the adjournment of this debate last Wednesday I stated that one of my reasons for wishing to speak was that I had been the first member of the Canadian parliament to advocate official recognition of the Soviet government. I did so on February 3, 1942, at page 299 of Hansard for that year, in these words:

I suggest that we should immediately take steps to recognize the government of the Soviet union . . . We should welcome in this country a Soviet military mission and should send one of ours to Russia. I believe we have much to teach them, and it is more than likely that they have much to teach us...

The Russians have been the first people to meet and defeat the blitzkrieg. It is to them we must look for the initial destruction of the German land forces. Their magnificent heroism has sent the brazen horde reeling in disorder from their capital. Today the Soviet power is the second or third most important in the world. Soviet Russia and Canada are near neighbours: we are both northern people living in an extreme climate; we both have a great country to develop. Yet one would think it was almost indecent to mention Russia . . .

I am not afraid of the spread of communism in Canada, if we treat Russia as a full ally and welcome members of her armed forces in the same way as we do those of any of the other "united nations." I should like to see a Soviet legation at Ottawa; the hammer and sickle should fly proudly at the masthead instead of being considered an emblem of somewhat questionable morality ... to refuse to recognize this great power is building up trouble for ourselves and is going to give great aid to subversive elements which are even now at work trying to undermine the security of the state. We are going to have to admit that the Soviet philosophy exists and that it has done great things; let us admit it openly and above the broad tables of government rather than have snivelling, subversive agents peddling anarchist literature to the adolescent minds of the students in our schools, universities and training camps. We have seen what anarchy has done in other countries. It can happen here.

The point stressed, it will be seen, was that official recognition of Soviet power, and, by association, of the communist party, would bring communism into the open, and any actions of communists or of the party therefore would be fully exposed to the public view. My point was that communism would then be considered as a system of government which, while we did not agree with it, had

every right to co-exist with our democratic and free parliamentary system. This view was widely held at that time, even by such persons as the President of the United States and Winston Churchill. The fact that two communist members were elected to this House of Commons in the nineteenth and twentieth parliaments shows how far official acceptance actually went in Canada.

How tragically wrong subsequent history has shown this argument to be! The hopes we all had that Hitler's folly might have paved the way for Russia to become co-operative with the free nations of the world were almost immediately destroyed. Even while fighting for her very existence she treated the military missions of her allies with extreme suspicion and scant courtesy, and did everything possible to prevent them from gaining any firsthand knowledge of the tactical or strategic problems of the actual fighting. As an example of this, the only information we could get about the weapons and armoured vehicles 'with which we supplied her, and how they were standing up under actual combat conditions, came not from our mis-sion-and when I say that I mean the British mission to Russia-but from our own agents in Germany. Her shocking ingratitude in regard to the appalling task of supplying her through the tremendously hazardous Murmansk convoy route was a high point of international bad manners without equal in history. Her querulous and carping criticism of everything we did for her right from the start showed that the communist soviet state, like the leopard, cannot change its spots or its disposition.

An interesting aside of those early days on the eastern front was that the people of the Ukraine welcomed the Germans as deliverers; and had Hitler promised a free Ukraine, and not behaved with such abominable ruthlessness and barbarity, there is little doubt that his endeavour to capture Moscow and reach the Urals would have succeeded. The arrogant nonsense about a master race in all probability can be said to have cost him the victory.

Irrefutable evidence shows that it was touch and go whether the Soviets started a shooting war after the end of the major hostilities in 1947, but they apparently thought that they could win with the Berlin blockade. With the tremendous aerodrome construction projects being rushed to completion in Germany for fighter and bomber aircraft at this very moment, who can reasonably doubt the real intentions of these people? Instead, Mr. Speaker, of judging communism by the remarks of such leaders as Lenin and Stalin, who have both made a fundamental

Communist Activities in Canada point of their doctrine that communism cannot co-exist with free democracies, we made the fatal mistake of judging others by ourselves, and, assuming that because we and no other democracy had any designs on any communist state, it would therefore follow that no communist state would have any designs on us.

Two costly and fundamental lessons have been learned, at least by some of us. First, if you recognize communism it does not do away with its underground activities. The argument that to take steps against communism in the open would drive it underground is entirely specious. No matter what recognition we give to communism and communists, they will continue to have an active and extremely dangerous underground. The communist party is like an iceberg, eleven-twelfths of which is submerged. It is just as foolish to try to alter the nature of a communist as it is to try to alter the physical properties of ice. Ice will always float with eleven-twelfths of it submerged, and communism will always carry on most of its activities underground. This is true, strangely enough, even in countries where there is a communist form of government in power.

The second lesson that we have learned, and it is a bitter one, is that communism and freedom cannot peacefully co-exist in the world today. Every single doctrine of the communist ideology is diametrically opposed to every principle in which we in the free countries believe. This is not a case of communism versus capitalism. Today Russia has a capitalist oligarchy, and the difference in income of the various classes in Russia is infinitely greater than in any capitalist country. No; the quarrel is not between socialism and capitalism; the quarrel is between the dignity of man and the slave state. Were I a religious man, I would say that the difference is so fundamental that the Christian teaching is that man is created in God's image, whereas the communist teaching is that man is created to serve his master, Stalin, the narrow dogmatic Marxist view of man as a servile animal disciplined by fear.

For anybody in this house to say, as some speakers did last week, that to bring communism out into the open prevents it from being underground, and that communism and freedom can peacefully co-exist, is to show that they have learned nothing from recent tragic history. It can be classed as criminal stupidity.

There is another point which must be brought out at this time, and that is the belief, to use the Prime Minister's words, that the best way to destroy communism is to make democracy work. Nothing could be

2304 HOUSE OF

Communist Activities in Canada further from the truth. Even if all the cardcarrying members of the communist party in Canada were put into the Senate and given a pension of $6,000 a year for life, they would still be communists, and they would still actively seek to destroy the land in which they live. A man or a woman who has been infected by the communist virus will be a communist, and will advocate communism even though he or she be a millionaire and lives in a marble palace. Why this is so is not the point at issue in this debate, but recent history has shown it to be true. To use the words "defeat communism by making democracy work" is to actually play into the hands of the communists. Their argument is -that democracy does not work, and if we, by specious negative statements such as this, state even by inference that it does not work, the communists will use our words, as Kipling puts it, "to see the truths you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools."

The danger of ideological appeasement is just as great as the danger of physical appeasement; in fact, it is probably worse. Communist Russia has never had to send an army across any frontier to make new conquests. She has only had to rely on subversive activity. This is the new weapon of the new warfare, and it is just as important for us to combat it as it would be to combat an invading army using infantry, tanks and bombs. The subversive war is going on now. This must be clearly understood. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope this is the last time we shall ever hear this method of defeating communism advocated, at least by members of responsible political parties in this house. I repeat that the three fundamental facts which recent history have taught us are: first, that communism cannot co-exist peacefully with freedom; second, that to recognize communism does not destroy its underground movement; and third, that communism cannot be defeated by economic prosperity.

One further gross error made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was in his statement that the prosecution of communist or other subversive acts was the duty and responsibility of the provincial authorities. For the first years of the war, that is from 1939 to April, 1942, I held the position of district intelligence officer for military district No. 2, with headquarters in Toronto. This district, as is known to members, was by far the largest military district in Canada. It was then, and still is, the centre of communist activity. The question of subversive activity was a direct responsibility of the intelligence staff. As I had the responsibility during all the time the United States was

neutral, and there existed an active nazi organization known as the German-American Bund, as well as an active communist party, both in Canada and the United States, who did everything to hinder our participation in the war which was termed imperialist and capitalist aggression, I feel that my experience during those years gives me the right to speak on the subject of the prevention of subversive activity and enforcement of laws designed to combat it.

The first thing I wish to say is that during this entire period it was the federal authority who dealt with subversive activity; it was the federal police who made the investigations, made the arrests, laid the charges and presented the evidence in court. Naturally we in the army co-operated with them in every way, as did the provincial police. The point I wish to stress, however, is that it was the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who, in all cases, looked after the prosecution of persons charged with subversive activity. It is true that I did occasionally see the then attorney general for the province of Ontario, Mr. Conant, which at that time had a Liberal administration. He was, however, emphatic that all questions dealing with subversive activity were a federal responsibility. The provincial police did co-operate with us, but only when we asked them to do so. Our dealings with the Federal Bureau of Investigation were also on the Canadian federal level. I do not propose to enlarge on this work, because much of it probably still comes under the Official Secrets Act. The fact I want to make very clear is that subversive activity is considered by the authorities directly responsible for its prevention to be entirely a federal matter.

The officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with whom we worked during the war frequently said to me privately that they wished there was an amendment to the Criminal Code similar to that envisaged by this resolution so that prosecution would be made more simple. When dealing with subversive activity, the aim is to prevent the act being committed, not to prosecute after the foul deed is done. Prevention, not prosecution, is the slogan of all who have the responsibility of dealing with treason and sabotage.

Another error I wish to correct in the statement of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister is that England took no steps to prevent communist or other subversive activities. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While the communist party was, it is true, not officially banned, nevertheless under the Defence of the Realm Act-known as "Dora"-the widest possible powers were

given both to the military and to the civil powers to arrest, and to hold without trial and without warrant, any suspected person. It may not be generally known, but the Defence of the Realm Act had in it clauses such as the one which allowed any officer of any of the armed forces in uniform to apprehend and hold any civilian for a period of forty-eight hours before he even had to report the arrest to his superiors. If the individual was suspected, he could be put away virtually without a trial in a concentration camp and held there at His Majesty's pleasure. With powers such as these, there was absolutely no necessity officially to ban the communist party, or even Sir Oswald Mosley's fascists; but Mosley himself was nevertheless quite effectively locked up.

I now come to conditions as they exist today in Canada. Section 134 of the Criminal Code deals with sedition; and while sedition is not defined specifically, one of the generally accepted definitions is "to lead ignorant persons to subvert the laws". Recently we have had a number of instances of this in Canada. I speak of the communist propaganda directed toward the displaced persons who have for the past year or so been entering Canada for the prime purpose of getting security from Soviet expansion and, in fact, escaping the communist state.

One of the instances was when a riot took place in Timmins and the displaced persons who wished to be free turned on the communists who were trying to subvert them. Most hon. members will have received communist bleats about this episode, with the usual nonsense that they had been turned on by fascist dogs. I believe that anyone who tries to subvert or to incite these people who are now coming to Canada, and whom we hope to make into free and useful Canadian citizens, should be prosecuted, and that the Criminal Code should be altered to make this possible.

Another example of the necessity for an alteration in the Criminal Code is what is known as the policy of separation from sensitive positions of persons in the civil service if they are thought to have subversive contacts, or even subversive inclinations. Such a matter as having in their possession or in their residence lists of addresses and telephone numbers of known subversives, or to have visited and been seen in the company of known subversives, is considered evidence enough to bring about separation. Thus the government can and does deprive people of their jobs and economic security without a trial and without recourse. If a man is subversive, he is just

Communist Activities in Canada as subversive in a key position in a sensitive industry as he would be in the film board or in any government department, with the possible exception of the department of state and the Department of National Defence. If a man is not subversive and wishes to appeal from the decision of the investigating authorities, he should be able to do so; but to provide security and to prevent the methods used by the police from becoming known, an alteration in the Criminal Code would seem advisable.

To show that the government is aware of this fact, it was announced that an amendment to the Official Secrets Act is proposed this session. While I am not, of course, in a position to anticipate the nature of this amendment, it is obvious that recent events have shown the inadequacy of the present law. Whether subversive activity is an offence against the Criminal Code or against the Official Secrets Act, or both, is a question of legal and administrative argument. It is apparent, however, that the government considers the present legislation inadequate for the purposes at hand.

The motion before the house recognizes this situation, and is directed to the introduction of a preventive, not a punitive measure. I say again that the aim of all responsible democratic authorities is primarily to prevent subversive activities from taking place, rather than to punish those who have engaged in them. This amendment was drafted to bring this about. It is not aimed at outlawing anyone, nor does it in any way attempt to do anything to anyone because of his thoughts. I therefore support the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Permalink
?

Mr. A. J. Baler@The Balllefords

In rising to say a few words on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, I shall first of all read the amendment and then make a few observations.

The amendment read's as follows:

This house is of the opinion that appropriate legislation should be introduced so that communist and similar activities in Canada may be made an offence punishable under the Criminal Code.

In speaking to this amendment I think we can again say that possibly we are trying to decide which is the right way to do the right thing. After listening to the mover of this resolution, I have been doing a little bit of thinking; and I have come to the conclusion that if the amendment were adopted we would be endeavouring to do the right thing in the wrong way. I thought that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) struck the right note when he replied just last week.

I recall some twenty-one years ago, being back in the country which gave me my birth.

Communist Activities in Canada I was walking down from Whitechapel to Westminster Abbey and the parliament buildings, and there I saw what I had often heard about, namely, a man standing on a box. He had an audience of only four people. I said to the guide, "What is that man doing there?" He said, "Oh, he is just having a little conversation with the three or four people who are his audience." I walked over to this man who was on a box near the parliament buildings in London. There was a policeman there, with no revolver. I said to the policeman, "Is this permissible?" He said, "Oh, yes, we allow it." He said, "It is quite all right. It is our law. He is just letting off a little bit of steam. He is not hurting anyone." But he was surely laying out the government of the day at that time.

It has been said by the fascist and communist countries that our system of democracy is slow. It is * quite true that it is slow. That which I saw there in England was just twenty-one years ago. Subsequently some communists were elected to the House of Commons in England. How many were elected in the recent elections there? Not one. I therefore say, Mr. Speaker, that while our system may be a little bit slow, it is possibly in the best interests of the country in the long run.

Mention was made of what some other countries, including some of our commonwealth countries, are doing at the present time in respect to communism. I wish to read an editorial from one of our western papers. It is as follows:

Australia and Communism

The new Australian government is losing no time in carrying out its election pledge to ban the communist party. In the speech from the throne at the opening of parliament last week it was announced that "legislation would be brought down to make the party illegal.

Other countries have sought to check communism by various legal means, but Australia will be the first English-speaking country to try to ban the movement altogether in peacetime.

There are undoubtedly substantial reasons for taking this step. The Australian communist party is the most active and aggressive in the commonwealth. Since the war ended it has organized a long series of disastrous strikes in the coal mines, on the docks and in other vital industries, and caused incalculable damage and suffering to the country. These strikes, communist leaders frankly acknowledge, were called not to remedy legitimate labour grievances, but for political purposes-to disrupt the national economy, and to sabotage defence preparations.

As a climax, the secretary of the party, Laurence Sharkey, stated openly last year that if Soviet troops invaded Australia he and his followers would help them. This was too much for the Labour government then in power, and Sharkey was convicted of sedition. As a result of all this, public demand for the suppression of the party has become almost irresistible.

[Mr. Bater.l

Nevertheless the wisdom of this move is open to question. Communist parties have been outlawed at various times in European and Asiatic countries, but always with indifferent success. Such laws may cause the party to disappear from view, but they do not destroy it. The members simply go underground and carry on as a wholly secret and illegal organization. In that situation they often do more damage than they could when their activities were partly in the open. Also, an active harrying of the Reds gives them the opportunity to pose as martyrs and win support among sentimental and ill-informed persons.

It is sometimes argued that "driving the communists underground" is of little importance because a large part of their work is secret and conspiratorial anyway. This is true. None the less the existence of the "legal" wing of the party, like the tip of a largely-submerged iceberg, has often been valuable to the authorities, as it makes it easier to watch the activities of the whole organization. It was for this reason that J. Edgar Hoover of the F.B.I.-an implacable foe of communism if ever there was one-recently advised the United States congress against trying to outlaw the communist party in the United States.

Then, too, there is the unavoidable fact that however vicious communist activities are, we are departing from our traditions of free speech and political liberty when we punish Reds merely for their speeches or their membership cards.

This Australian experiment will be watched with interest.

Now we have a stranger within our gates. According to the press the Red Dean was asked many questions last night as to what they have and what they have not in one of the communist countries. What was his answer? He said what they had in Russia, but we know what they have not that we have, and it is the No. 1 bulwark of our democratic system as we know it in Canada and in the commonwealth countries; I refer to free speech and a free press. The fact that we have a free press is in itself almost sufficient to justify our not passing the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition.

I think I should read what Franklin Roosevelt, son of the late President Roosevelt, said on being interviewed just a short time ago:

Liberal democracy will win over communism, not with hydrogen bombs but by the practice of our ideas and ideals.

That is a great statement coming from a man who is the son of the late president.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think we as a government, as a parliament and as individuals, have to play a sincere part in practising, not only in this House of Commons as members of parliament, but outside of this house, and endeavour to encourage in every individual in the country, regardless of his calling, the principles we profess to admire in our democratic system. If we do that, then the amendment which is now before the house will not be necessary.

Topic:   COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Cenlre):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Bater) when he described the operations of our British philosophy of freedom. With his remarks I am in general agreement, as are hon. members on all sides of the house.

This amendment and debate have been beneficial in that they have brought to the attention of the house and of the country a condition that challenges our way of life, not only within our own country, but generally everywhere throughout the world.

As I listened to the debate the other day I recalled that five years ago, at the United Nations conference in San Francisco on international organization, Mr. Molotov, speaking for the U.S.S.R. as its foreign commissar and representative, said that no longer would aggression be allowed among the nations of the world; that no longer would injustice be permitted to exist anywhere; that when the United Nations charter was finally completed and accepted by the nations of the world never again would there be aggression, or the possibility. That was five years ago. Events of the last six weeks have been the most challenging in the history of the democratic nations and in their fight for survival. I shall mention only one or two.

During the last six weeks the U.S.S.R. has adopted a more truculent attitude than ever before. She has asked Great Britain and the United States to leave Trieste. She has placed over the Polish army, officers of the U.S.S.R., and she has made the serious threat that on May 28 five hundred thousand communist Germans will cross into the British or the United States zones of Berlin. That indicates a state of mind and an attitude that challenges members in this house, and in all democratic parliaments, to view the threat of communism, and consider how its illegal and overt acts are to be met under the law.

As one who over the years has advocated the establishment in this country of a national bill of rights for the maintenance and preservation of our freedoms from within, and also the necessity of parliament accepting its responsibilities in connection with the United Nations charter by the adoption of the United Nations declaration of freedom, I view with deep concern the situation brought about through communist activities in our own country and in the countries that have been overrun.

There are one or two matters concerning which we are all in agreement. One is that conditions internationally are serious. No one need say in this House of Commons how accursed communism is; that is admitted.

Communist Activities in Canada But where the division of opinion comes is in this: What measures should be taken to the end that communism and its activities within our country shall not be permitted to remain outside of jeopardy for the commission of wrongs against the state?

We ask ourselves the question whether the law, in its present state, does in fact meet the needs and exigencies of these times. When we face that problem the next follows naturally and it is this: What has the government, representative of the people of Canada, done in the last few years to enforce the law so far as illegal communist activities are concerned? Has the law been used? Is the law sufficient?

That brings one to the question of enforcement or non-enforcement of the law as it now stands. The next phase of the problem is to determine how far our country should go in protecting security and at the same time preserving freedom. After all, freedom is our tradition, and without it our parliamentary system cannot operate. Freedom does not mean licence. Freedom does not mean the right to do the things we will. Freedom, simply defined, is our right to proceed and to act in accordance with the dictates of our conscience, so long as in the exercise of our freedom we do not invade or interfere with the freedoms of others. Freedom consists of freedom of speech, of religion, of associations-and I think, too, freedom from unjust state control. Freedom does not mean that in the exercise of freedom of speech we must be right; it implies that we must do right. Freedom does not mean that we cannot be wrong; freedom under law denies our right to do wrong.

Measured in these terms one looks back over the last four years since Mr. Churchill made his speech at Fulton, Missouri. If ever a stateman prophesied what would happen, certainly he did when he spoke in that historic speech. He warned of the danger to the world and the serious threat to the preservation of the United Nations which is implicit in the expansionist policy of the U.S.S.R. In our own country within the last few days it has been stated in The Outlook of Mayj 1950:

The communist offensive of 1950 is now in lull swing. For the first time, Canada is a main objective. The Moscow politburo has ordered its agents to concentrate on wrecking the economy of Canada.

Then it goes on to say:

The main communist objective in Canada-industrial collapse-is to be pressed with maximum effort.

What do the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) say? I shall refer to their remarks in a general way and then, if the Minister of Justice desires me to do so, I shall refer to

Communist Activities in Canada them in particular. If I understood correctly the purport of the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, it is this: that the law today is sufficient.

There are laws on' our statute books-

Said the Prime Minister, as reported at page 2087 of Hansard.

-laws in the Criminal Code, which are sufficient, if applied-*

And I accentuate the words "if applied".

-to deal with all overt acts directed against the security of the state.

The Minister of Justice, in the course of his remarks, referred to the sufficiency of the law, when, as reported at page 2139 of Hansard, he said:

The law today is sufficiently extensive to support convictions in all those cases where overt acts can be proved.

Then he goes on to quote with approval the words of Mr., then Senator, Meighen. Sir, it is indeed something to hear a member on the government side quoting Mr. Meighen with approval; but that is what the Minister of Justice has done. I know the minister has no ghost writer in his department who writes his speeches for him; he prepares his own speeches and delivers them as prepared. Referring to section 98 he quoted Mr. Meighen in these words:

Senator Meighen put it-

That is, the idea that even section 98 did not punish .anyone for his ideas.

-in this rather pungent language: "The memorandum-"

A memorandum prepared by the late Mr. Lapointe.

"-quotes an opinion of Macaulay's that it is only when the individual, having harboured wrong ideas, gives effect to them to the detriment of the state, that he ought to be punished. Who within the four walls of parliament or anything other than a lunatic asylum would ever entertain a contrary opinion?"

I agree that a person should not be punished for what he thinks; but I would ask the minister this: How do you, as a member of the government, and believing that, from time to time join in the removal of people from departments of government, not for what they do but only for what you suspect they think?

Section 98 was introduced and became law in 1919. There are parts of that section that cannot be justified in days of peace; and when I say that, I have distinguished support, not only from the Minister of Justice, but also in the words of Mr. Lapointe, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Meighen. Came the campaign of 1935, and in it the Liberal party had as one of its fourteen points the repeal of section 98. When the election was over they

introduced legislation to repeal section 98. Let me refer to the opening paragraph of the section, which reads as follows:

Any association, organization, society or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose purposes is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada by use of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches, advocates, advises or defends the use of force, violence, terrorism, or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, in order to accomplish such change, or for any other purpose, or which shall by any means prosecute or pursue such purpose or professed purpose, or shall so teach, advocate, advise or defend, shall be an unlawful association.

The subsequent subsections provided for the means of proof and the presumptions. After the election of 1935 there had to be the payoff. The Minister of Justice smiles. I am going to cite as evidence in that regard the words of Mr. Meighen, who was accepted by the hon. gentleman as an authority on this subject, because he quoted from him, but abstracted a few lines to meet his own purpose. I do not 'know whether he read the rest of the speech, but he put violent hands on one portion and left his hands off other portions.

Topic:   COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Stuart Sinclair Garson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Garson:

On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think I should put on the record that I quoted the whole of Mr. Meighen's speech that was relevant to the point I was discussing.

Topic:   COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

It has been said that some can quote scripture to suit their own ends. My hon. friend quoted Mr. Meighen but he did not quote his words from the same page, page 619 of the debates of the Senate for June 20, 1936, where he said:

This bill repeals section 98, it is true, but in another section it restores section 98, or the full effect of it, after the repeal. To certain persons, some of them well-intentioned, but principally to the communists whose votes it was necessary to secure by a promise of the repeal of section 98, the government by this bill gives the repeal with one hand and from them it takes it back with the other.

That is in the second paragraph after the words quoted with approval by the Minister of Justice.

Topic:   COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Stuart Sinclair Garson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Garson:

I wonder if I might ask my hon. friend a question? If Mr. Meighen was right in the statement which my hon. friend has just quoted, then why is my hon. friend supporting the present amendment?

Topic:   COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

If my hon. friend will wait, I will carry on the argument, and I will ask him this.

Topic:   COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Stuart Sinclair Garson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Garson:

Answer my question first.

Topic:   COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I will come to his point, because I can understand how he feels when,

having abstracted a few lines out of the record, he deliberately left out the pertinent portions thereof.

Topic:   COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Stuart Sinclair Garson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Garson:

Is that a pertinent portion?

Topic:   COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I now come to the change that was made. Section 98 was repealed and a new subsection was added to section 133, as follows:

Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression "seditious intention"-

That is in connection with prosecutions for sedition.

-everyone shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who publishes, or circulates any writing, printing or document in which it is advocated, or who teaches or advocates the use, without the authority of law, of force, as a means of accomplishing any governmental change within Canada.

Section 98 was removed, and in place of it a presumption of guilt was created under the law of sedition against anyone who in any way supports or advocates the changing of the government of our country by force.

Topic:   COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Stuart Sinclair Garson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Garson:

"By force." .May I ask a

question at that point?

Topic:   COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Permalink
PC
LIB

Stuart Sinclair Garson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Garson:

Does my hon. friend support his leader's resolution objecting to that section he has just been quoting?

Topic:   COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Permalink

May 9, 1950