My hon. friend built an edifice of fallacy in his speech; he said, in effect, "We cannot act; the provinces must do so." I repeat that he has the agency under his control, the R.C.M.P., which operates everywhere in this dominion and has all the information. Does he ask them to lay charges? If he did, those charges would be carried on by the attorneys general of the provinces affected. What is the authority of the mounted police? I read from this booklet to which I referred a moment ago, under the heading "Functions and Limitations of Police Forces":
The R.C.M.P., the federal police force, is headed by a commissioner who reports to a minister of the crown who is designated "minister in control of the force." (The present minister in control of the force holds the portfolio of Minister of Justice.)
Primarily this force is charged with the enforcement of all federal statutes anywhere in Canada, but by special arrangement with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, it acts as the provincial police in those six provinces.
Is there any wrongdoing in those six provinces, any activity on the part of communists?
Are there activities in the other provinces? In every case if information is furnished to the provincial attorneys general, or an information is laid, then the procedure is to prosecute through the provinces. Why is that not done? Why is the law not enforced? In section 133, subsection 4, you have a presumption of guilt; you put it in the law, why not enforce it? There used to be criticism of section 98 on the ground that it placed an onus on the accused; yet the same thing was done in section 133, subsection 4.
My mind goes back to 1944 and 1945. I ask the minister, why do you not enforce the law? Having regard to what communism has done generally in other countries, without entering into a witch-hunt which I join with the minister in condemning, with all the evidence available, and there must be evidence available when one sees the activities
Communist Activities in Canada of the exposed part of the iceberg, to use an analogy that was used today, why is the law not enforced? I well remember the interview given by Tim Buck on June 26, 1944, in which he said:
... in an interview that his recent invitation to Prime Minister Mackenzie King to join forces with his party had been "misunderstood."
"I merely suggested to him," added Mr. Buck, "that if his legislation become liberalized-and spell that with a small T-that if he played down our alley now, we might throw our weight his way when the House of Commons is split many ways' after the next election."
What did Mr. McLean, the Liberal organizer, say at that time? These are things that are in the record.
The Liberal party welcomes co-operation from everyone in Canada in putting into effect Liberal principles and policies, because we are sure that these policies are the only real answer to the problems which face Canada-
That was the answer of Mr. McLean, the director of the federation. Then I remember the by-election in Grey North in that year. These men came out of the internment camp into the election. I ask why it is that in a period of fifteen years there have only been two prosecutions. Why, in the last four or five years, when the onrush of communism has become apparent everywhere in the world, when its activities within our own nation have been intensified-and all I am doing is asking for information-under those circumstances, the Minister of Justice hides behind the smokescreen he has created in order to explain why the law, strong as he says it is, has not been enforced. I feel, sir, that the law as it stands, if carried out, would bring results. I do not come before this house to prove untrue to the things in which I have always believed. I agree with the members of the government in so far as the outlawing of communism is concerned. Experience has proven that method to be unsuccessful where it has been tried-in Russia, Czechoslovakia, Italy and Switzerland. It was tried in Russia for seventeen years; communism was outlawed in Czechoslovakia, and in Italy for seventeen years under Mussolini. In Switzerland, it was outlawed for a period of several years. Outlawry is now to be tried in Australia. I believe the time has come in this country when the people are asking for action.
I think the time has come to try inlawry in this country in so far as those who would undermine by force are concerned. Where there are overt acts, where there are outspoken words, where there is, on the part of those who undermine, a declaration that they intend to destroy our system of government by force, surely the time has come, not for evasion on the part of a government, not
Communist Activities in Canada for grandiloquent speeches on the evils of communism, but for a declaration of the intention of the government to enforce the law. We have had too much experience under the present Minister of Justice with laws not being enforced when he, under the direction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), felt that the law should not be enforced. The attorney general of this country has the responsibility of carrying out the law. The minister quoted from the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen that the transition from section 98 to section 133, in effect, still left the onus upon those who openly speak in favour of overt acts against the state. Then, sir, I suggest this to the minister. If what he says is correct, that the law is sufficient, then let him translate the effect of that declaration into action. Certainly if the law is sufficient it is being enforced in a way that no communist has anything to fear. Law on the statute books is only as strong, and only as powerful, as the will of the Minister of Justice to enforce it. He and the Prime Minister say the law is sufficient. I say enforce it; if not, bring it up to date.
Utilize and enforce the law as it is, and assure the people of Canada that our country shall not be undermined by those who have nothing to fear from the traps of prosecution, to which the Prime Minister referred. Declarations have their place. Laws are important on the statute books. When communists can go throughout our country advocating the undermining of our country by force, carrying newspapers with them to the same effect, I think the time has come to start enforcing the law-under law and not outside the law, to the end that wrongdoers will find they will be given an opportunity in this country, loving the iron curtain as they do, to be behind iron bars when they overtly break the law.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the house to say how we view the amendment that is now before us. But before I do, I should like to make a few comments on the general subject of the discussion. During the debate, and I think it has been a worth-while one, a good many things have been said about communism. No one has yet described this evil thing, which is loathesome to me, in terms that are too strong to suit us. We despise it. We have fought communism out into the open ever since we were an organization. Some of us have fought communism since shortly after the first great war when communistic cells began to spring up like mushrooms in all the countries of the world.
We think that communism could have been destroyed in the shell in 1917, but perfidious men were responsible for nourishing it and spreading it from its infancy. That, however, is not the subject of discussion. We have kept the spotlight on communism ever since, in every single way that we could. In the early days of our organization we used to think that our efforts were somewhat in vain because we did not get much response; but now we rejoice to think that so many Canadians have become aroused to the dangers inherent in communism and the threat that it offers to the security of our country and the individuals who compose it.
For quite a number of years we have realized that communism is a way of thinking, a state of mind. Because that is so, it is quite obvious to me at any rate that it is something that cannot be banned by an act of parliament or by the proclamation of any officer of government. It is only when that state of mind is translated into action which may be a threat to the security of the nation that we can get at it through process of law.
By a good many speakers in this debate it has been said that communism has declined in Canada. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made that statement, as well as others I have heard. Perhaps that is so. I suppose the actual number of registered communists in Canada may have declined; it may be considerably smaller than it was a few years ago. But let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is not so much those who are registered as communists who constitute the danger to our security. The greater threat comes from fellow travellers and sympathizers. There may be a good many of them in our country, many more than some people suspect. That proved to be the situation in the United States, and I do not think that the United States is much different from Canada.
I have in my hand a report that appeared in the Citizen of Wednesday, May 3, under dateline New York and under the headline "Only 55,000 Reds but 500,000 'Travellers' in U.S." This is a report of a speech given by director J. Edgar Hoover of the Federal Bureau of Investigation when he spoke before some organization down in the United States. He said this:
. . . the United States has only about 55,000 communist party members, but their real strength lies in 500,000 fellow-travellers and sympathizers ready to do their bidding.
Hoover made his estimate of the number of card-carrying members of the country's force of traitorous communists and of their sympathizers, at a masonic gathering last night.
Hoover's estimate of the communist party membership was in line with recent reports that the party had dwindled since the war from a previously estimated 75,000 or 100,000.
He said the subversives are a real danger to the U.S.-despite their relatively small numerical strength-and he predicted that their influence will be destroyed.
Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Hoover's last declaration, that they will be destroyed, is a statement of fact.
What are we to do about subversive organizations and forces in Canada? We have in this country other subversives than communists. I have wondered a good deal just what we should do. I cannot say in full or in explicit terms what should be done to protect our country against these subversive forces. I would not attempt to outline a comprehensive formula or program, but I believe that I have some ideas which, if applied, would certainly go far toward lessening the dangers.
I think that perhaps the first and most important thing for us to do in this country, at least to start with, is to get an understanding of some things. There is no use in trying to fight a force that we do not understand. There is no use in trying to do things about this whole dangerous situation unless we have a thorough understanding of the soil in which communism and other subversive doctrines thrive.
I think that one of the conditions which provide food for communism is this. Any time you find widespread throughout a country or amongst a people a callous disregard for human life and suffering, that state of mind provides food for communism. During the war every country that was involved trained its young men to take a human life with as little compunction as if they were swatting a fly. They trained them into that state of mind. Hence, when the war closed, in practically every country over the earth there was a callous disregard for human life and for human suffering. Both sides in the struggle so trained their young men, so that one was no worse than the other. I say, therefore, in such circumstances, how could there help but develop a disregard for suffering and a decline in the value which is placed upon human life?
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that years of training into that state of mind does not sublimate in one year or in five years. It takes a long and careful process of unlearning, followed by a good many years of education in the art of human relationships; in that art wherein high value is placed on human life and human rights; in that art wherein human souls are lifted, in the mind of man, to a dignity and respect much higher than we have ever known before. It seems to me that communism, which thrives in a climate of callous disregard for life and human suffering, would decline in a new atmosphere in which human beings are valued highly.
Communist Activities in Canada
One way to eradicate communism therefore would be for our people to emphasize in their educational systems that a very high value must be placed upon healthy, happy, free and vibrant human beings, no matter what their colour, their race or their creed may be. If we are to do this then our whole approach to Canadian living must be permeated through and through with spiritual leaven. I was agreeably pleased and surprised to hear so many participants in this debate refer to the necessity of a return to the things of the spirit. Communism is Godless materialism rampant. We Canadians, I think, ought to take stock. Our idea might be just as materialistic as the one we are fighting; and I am convinced that it is not possible to launch an offensive against communism and these other subversive doctrines that can win in a cold war unless we dispel the fog and the delusion under which we seem to have fallen.
I think that envisioned, at least in the wording of the amendment that is before us, is the expression of that delusion. No antiprogram will ever turn the marxists in any country. That ought to be clear. A positive overriding ideology, encompassing the full play of spiritual forces, will turn them. I have seen it. I wish I had time to tell you of some of the observations that I was privileged to make in Germany where an organization called-I think it could be more correctly called a movement - "Moral rearmament" worked amongst the miners and the steel workers, many of whom were communists, fascists and nazis. I personally witnessed some of these people coming to a realization that they had been following a Godless materialism, and when they approached their whole problem of living with a spiritual outlook they began to find a new vibrancy and satisfaction in living, and they turned from communism and joined in a movement and tried to influence their fellow communists to discover the art of satisfied living.
I am in agreement with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he says that one of our major tasks now is to make democracy work as it ought to work in the interest of individuals. If democracy is rehabilitated, strengthened and made to work as it ought to work, then I am satisfied that communism will not be a serious threat to our peace and our security. Mr. Speaker, never forget this: Strengthening democracy must include the provision of satisfactory and workable cushions for our economy against a depression. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if it has ever occurred to hon. members to ask themselves what would happen throughout the democracies of the world if Stalin suddenly should
2314 HOUSE OF
Communist Activities in Canada declare a reversal of his policy of recent years. If he should say to the people of the world: "Look, we have not wanted to conduct an imperialistic cold war; what we want is peace, and we will enter into a pact of peace for fifteen years". Well, of course at first we would not believe him, because thus far we have found no truth in him or in any of his following; so we might not take his word for granted to start with; but after a while we probably would.
A prominent Progressive Conservative posed that very question in a small group where I found myself just a few days ago. The smartest thing that Stalin could do today would be to declare that he and his country were seeking peace, and if he were to reverse his policy and enter into pacts of- peace for a period of say fifteen or twenty years. Why do I say that? Because it would throw the democracies into a tailspin. The minute that they have to take care of the production of their countries without drawing off the cream of it for war purposes, how long do you suppose it would take them to get into a depression? Do not forget that Stalin is longheaded, and he knows that. Stalin and his Russians are going to take the action that will be best designed to spread Russian communism over the whole world. Let us do some thinking about it.
What would we do if we did not have to spend the $400 million or $500 million that we are now spending in preparation for war? If we are to meet this threat, Mr. Speaker, and really make democracy work, as the Prime Minister says it must be made to work, then we have to seek ways of expanding production for use and not destruction.
Second, we have to seek ways of closing the gap between the gross national production and the national income of our people so that they can buy and use the goods we produce. And third, we have got to seek fair trading and peaceful co-operation with all the nations of the earth, and help them out, as far as we possibly can, out of the abundance of our production.
Communists, that is, the trained agents of Moscow, want depression in the democracies because they know that their cause will grow best in the soil of unemployment, of want and of misery. Mr. Speaker, while speaking of a depression and unemployment, let us not overlook this fact, that as unemployment spreads in any country the first people to take action against it are the communist organizers. Let us not overlook that, and if we want to make communists in Canada, the best way to do it is to disregard these young men who, even if it is seasonal, are forced out of work by unemployment.
Just over a week ago I had an experience which I value very highly. I was invited by an organization called "The Canadian convention of unemployed workers" to go down and address them. I made as much inquiry as I could about them, and I found that some of the names were communist. But that did not deter me, for this reason: I wanted to see for myself exactly what their techniques were, and also see just exactly who appeared. So I went down. Unfortunately I was the only one from parliament who did go. I am not blaming hon. members; I can understand why those who were invited did not go. But I will tell you this, that when I went into that hall on Bank street south I saw a picture I shall not soon forget.
Scattered around the hall were small tables. Seated around those tables in threes and fours were young men-very young, in the main-and old men who, in the main, were quite old. But scattered among them were these smoothies who had probably been trained in Moscow, down to the finest technique of a magician. They were treating these young men and girls, and the older men, to coffee, cokes and hot dogs. In other words, they were catering to the comforts of the inner man, and posing as the friends of these young people.
It is much easier to think of a man as your friend if he is helping you to fill your stomach
especially if that stomach has not been accustomed to being filled. It is much easier to think a man is your friend if he sits down to chat with you and to give you a word of encouragement; even if they are lies, the young fellow does not know.
Because I went early I was privileged to watch the procedure for about forty minutes, with the result that I got a pretty good eyeful before I was asked to' speak. I heard the organizer of this gang read to them for their approval the submission they were going to make on behalf of the unemployed in Canada to the Prime Minister of Canada. I hold a copy of it in my hand, and at that time I marked it so that I would be able to turn quickly to those things I wanted to say when I was given the chance to speak.
Finally I was called to the platform, and I spoke to them. I knew these were innocent young fellows, worthy Canadians perhaps, who had just been sucked into this thing by these trained operators. To those young men I said, "Are you interested in placing your case before the authorities?" They said that of course they were. Then I said, "All right; I can assure you that there are a great many people in Canada who are in sympathy with the problems you face; but you could not have undertaken a procedure better designed
to get your case thrown out than the procedure you are now following." I then turned to their brief and pointed out how intemperate the language was, and how it was designed to arouse and to inflame, rather than to convince.
All the time these young people were listening, the fellows at the table were furious. Had it not been for the fact that these young people were there and were sympathetic to what I was saying, I might have been conked on the head and dragged out. However, that did not bother me, because I say these young men and women who are caught in the toils of these communist agitators and organizers are worth saving; and the only way they can be saved is to get the truth to them. That is why I say: any time we are invited to speak to these people, for heaven's sake let us go and speak to them and tell them the truth, no matter how many people there may be who disagree with us.
We must watch what is going on among the unemployed. In the years to come the most obvious manifestation of communism and communist activities will be found among those unfortunate ones in our population who have no work, and who have not incomes sufficient to meet their needs. It appears that the communists in our country have failed to take over Canadian labour unions. They tried hard enough. But, having failed in that direction, I am satisfied that the communists are turning their attentions to the unemployed. They have made it one of their major tasks to organize the jobless from coast to coast, and to inflame them and make them sympathizers and fellow travellers. Well, we know how to take care of that situation. I hope to God, Mr. Speaker, that we will have the courage to do what we know is right. We must see to it that these fellows, these smoothies, do not have a chance to organize very many.
1 have not mentioned by any means all the things we should do, nor do I intend to. But may I add just this word in closing, that we must exercise the utmost vigilance. I do not need to repeat to the members of the House of Commons that vigilance has always been and always will be the price of freedom. Communism and these other subversive doctrines are designed to fake away men's freedom, and to enslave them. For that reason every Canadian must be alerted to vigilance of the kind we have never exercised in our lives before.
I believe I am speaking what is in the minds of the people of Canada generally when I say that the people want the utmost vigilance on the part of those who are entrusted with government, and those who are
Communist Activities in Canada entrusted with the application of the law. I say the people of Canada are demanding the most vigorous and yet-let me emphasize this-the most just prosecution of any seditious or overt actions which might threaten the security of our people, no matter from what direction those overt acts may come, whether it be communists or fascists or anybody else. We cannot just single out the communists, because perhaps there are others who are just as bad.
The Canadian people are demanding that those who are responsible for conducting the government of this country shall prosecute with vigour and yet with the utmost justice any act that is seditious or designed to render insecure our state or our country or any of its people. But I think the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is not worded so as to state that purpose. As a matter of fact I had quite a hard time to figure out what it did mean. I think, though, the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition has served a useful purpose. It has certainly alerted parliament to the dangers of communism, subversive doctrines and other organizations which may be plotting to overthrow the state. I believe further that it has alerted the Canadian people to a greater degree than at any time since I have been a member of the House of Commons.
I believe it is good occasionally to arouse our people to the dangers that lurk unnoticed among us. So I compliment the leader of the opposition upon having moved his amendment. However, now that it has served its purpose, and because the wording is indefinite and does not state specifically what it wants done, I suggest that the house give the leader of the opposition authority to withdraw his amendment so that we may get on with other business.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with those who have said that it is well that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) should try to focus public opinion in Canada on the evils of communism. For that reason I think we have not misspent the few hours that have been occupied in discussing this matter. I have followed the debate fairly well. I am not going to suggest whether or not the laws of Canada are sufficient to deal with this menace that has been over our heads for the past fifteen or twenty years. I am going to suggest some things that might be done to allay the ravages of communism in Canada. I practised law in a town in Cape Breton many years ago. In 1915 certain frustrated young men organized something like a Fabian society. Before the first war ended there
Communist Activities in Canada became the head of that organization, a gentleman who I think introduced the tenets of communism in our part of the country.
Time went on, and eventually he was taken before the courts for having in his possession seditious literature which had been used to teach the young people and many of the older people of the town about the great thing that communism was. That man was sent to the penitentiary for two years for sedition. The purpose accomplished was that the school in which this literature was being used was disbanded. At that time I happened to be a member of the House of Commons, and a petition was presented to the house to obtain a ticket of leave for this man. I was one of those who went to the then minister of justice and suggested to him that he should grant the prayer of the petition and give this man a ticket of leave. I think that was a good thing because up till that time his role was that of a martyr to a glorious cause.
In my younger days when I went to college we had, in the third year of our undergraduate studies, a professor who gave us a course of eighteen lectures on communism as a philosophy. It is too bad that other institutions of learning in Canada have not followed that example. At that time communism of course was not looked on as a world-wide scheme of domination, or anything of that kind. I well remember our grey-haired professor suggesting to his class that the day was coming when this force of communism, which had not then spread to Russia, would in the end attempt to dominate the world. A few years later, when I had earned sufficient money to go to Dalhousie law school, I came in contact with another splendid professor there who was professor of international law. I do not know if there are any others in the house who went to Dalhousie university in those days. Dr. Weldon taught us international law, and one of the points he always dealt with was the danger of communism in international relations.
Coming back to the town where I practised law, Glace Bay, communism was fairly common there. Many of those who were interested in the movement were not really communists. They just thought they were communists. They did not understand the doctrine of communism. If the hundreds of them who joined the movement had known what communism actually was they would no more have gone to these meetings where communism was taught than they would have gone to a leper asylum.
The same college in which I was taught the evils of communism undertook a program in the mining and steel working districts of Cape Breton. They organized at their own cost
what was known as an adult education program. They organized clubs, generally in the industrial centres, to deal with adult education. Organization was carried on from the economic standpoint in order to teach the old and the young something about economics, and how to help themselves by the co-operative movement. Those two things were joined together. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that movement did more to remove communism from that area, to the extent that it is removed, than all the criminal statutes and laws that can be put on the statute books of Canada, whether or not they can be enforced.
My own idea is that there should be a new religious crusade in Canada. All religious denominations should co-operate to carry on such a crusade as to awaken the minds and the hearts of the people to the evil influences of communism, not as an economic force at all but as an anti-Christian force. The great and small universities of Canada should also co-operate. Unfortunately, if reports are true, I am afraid that many of our universities are following a course of economy. I believe that there should be co-operation between local governments and the dominion government so far as universities are concerned. I believe that universities should be forced to organize and co-operate in this regard instead of having a situation where certain professors say: Oh, that is all right, and they allow their students to have communistic political meetings and so on.
Since the debate on this matter commenced I have had a conversation with a well-meaning man who has some ideas about communism. Of course he is not a member of the house. He said to me that it is turning back the hands of the clock not to let communists or anybody else have freedom of speech in Canada, a free press and everything else. He said, "Look what they are doing in England". I do not understand the expression "turning back the hand of the clock" as he does. I do not think the hands of the clock should be turned back so far as the matter of time is concerned. Neither do I think the hands of the clock should be turned back so far as eternal truths and verities are concerned. It is often pointed out that England is doing this and England is doing that. England took good care to turn back the hands of the clock so far as freedom was concerned when they cut off the head of Charles I. They turned back the hands of the clock in another sense when they did away with capital punishment for the theft of a loaf of bread. I do not want the hands of the clock turned back in that sense, but neither do I want the hands of the clock to remain as they were either in England or in this country.
We are all proud of the glorious institutions that came from the old land. We are all proud of the constitution that was given us by Great Britain. We are all proud of the just laws that came to this country from England. But I for one, Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian citizen am not content to maintain here the freedom they have in the old land as far as communism is concerned. I do not believe it is the right of any Canadian citizen to put forth the tenets of communism in any public place, through the newspapers or otherwise. If those tenets are properly understood I believe that is a criminal offence today.
I am not going to participate in the discussion as to whether this amendment is proper or whether we have sufficient legislation already. As I said before, I believe this discussion will serve a good purpose, and I believe the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is to be congratulated on having brought this subject forward so that the people may focus their attention upon this evil thing. I understand this is not the first time the hon. gentleman has had something to say about communism. I believe that some years ago some articles appeared in Maclean's magazine coming from the pen of the leader of the opposition, which should have brought to the people of this country an awareness that I am afraid many of us do not have even yet of conditions in Russia and of the forces of communism. I tried to get copies of those articles the other day, but could not.
A moment ago I mentioned a crusade. That crusade should not be conducted in the manner of the old crusades, with iron blades and swords; it should be conducted with the keen blades of logic and Christian ethics. But I have one other suggestion to make. When I was on the bench of Nova Scotia I was faced one morning with a habeas corpus proceeding in connection with seventeen men who were being returned from western Canada to their former homes overseas. No objection was taken to the actual proceedings, that is to the face of the papers. The application was for habeas corpus and certiorari in aid; and they took the ground that the persons who were being returned to their own countries had done nothing in Canada and there was no reason why they should be sent away, since they had been brought here as immigrants, and so on. I thought it well to give the Royal Canadian Mounted Police an opportunity to show what these people had been doing in this country, and there came to the witness stand a member of that force of whom many no doubt have heard. He had spent some time in the communist organizations in western Canada, while still a member of the
Communist Activities in Canada R.C.M.P. but unknown to the members of those organizations. On that occasion he outlined to the court practically the whole communist organization, and proved that most of the men for whom habeas corpus was being sought had been connected with those organizations.
I needed no further evidence; though the case went to the Supreme Court of Canada, those men were sent overseas. I am going to suggest to the Department of Justice and the government that every known communist in this country who is not a Canadian citizen be sent back to the countries where communism is rampant. That could be done by co-operation between the Department of Justice and the immigration department. This is the only reason why the other day I thought I should take part in this debate. I do not want to make this a personal matter in connection with the case I am bringing to the attention of the government, but I would not be at all surprised if the people connected with some of those newspapers mentioned by the leader of the opposition the other day were communists, and not Canadian citizens, and this would be one way of dealing with this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take much time because I think practically everything has been said that can be said. I believe the leader of the Social Credit movement (Mr. Low) put his finger on the main problem in his discussion of the matter. Lip service is not going to cure the trouble; neither can it be cured by legalistic means.
I would not have risen at all but for the fact that the last speaker provoked me into doing so. He cited a case in his own community in 1915 as proof that you cannot handle a problem of this kind by regular legal means; and that is my reason for taking part in this discussion. I disagree completely with the hon. member's statement that at that time a group of frustrated young men formed the Fabian society. I would remind the hon. member that his former leader, Right Hon. Mackenzie King, was a member of the Fabian society at one time. It was a non-political organization formed to study the economic problems of the country and work for reform within their respective communities. I would also remind the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that the late Gordon Harrington, who became Conservative premier of Nova Scotia, was also a member of that society.
The hon. member also referred to James B. McLaughlin, who later on went over to the communist party, and said that he was arrested because he was found with seditious literature. That statement was incorrect. I
Communist Activities in Canada happened to be there at the time and know the facts. I went through that struggle, and I believe the hon. gentleman was a member of the house at that time. In that case the miners came out on a sympathy strike with the steelworkers. The international president of the mine workers expelled the executive board, and the statement that McLaughlin was taken, up for was this: When it came to a matter of law versus the hunger of women and children, so far as he was concerned he was on the side of the hungry. If you will recall, at that time there were some four or five hundred thugs on horses who indiscriminately rode down women and children in a subway-
But that was not why he was picked up. The reason the miners entered that struggle-I was a miner and McLaughlin was the secretary-treasurer of the organization-was that four or five hundred thugs on horses indiscriminately rode down the women and children who were coming from church. It was because of a statement McLaughlin made in connection with that incident that he was arrested and sentenced to five years in Dorchester penitentiary.
I want to bring to the hon. member's attention that, during the course of the trial, Attorney General O'Hearn admitted that perhaps the case was not quite in order. He said that there was a time when it was a crime to tell the truth, and that was when it might inflame the people. I just wanted to set the record straight on that question. The Fabian society was not a body of frustrated young men. I knew many of them personally, and I always considered them the leaders in the community. As I said before, this business of attempting to suppress communism by legalistic means is practically impossible.
I should like to ask my legal friends in the house this question. Suppose the government took the stand that it was going to outlaw communism in this country, I do not suppose there is anyone in this house, or in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who could prove that anyone was a communist. It would be necessary to prove that he was a member of the organization. Every communist of any importance in this country today is instructed not to carry a card, or any means of identifying himself with the
party. If Tim Buck were arrested tomorrow, and were made to stand trial as being a member of the communist party, how could his membership in the party be proven? It cannot be done. In my opinion, there is no way of combating communism except in the manner suggested by the leader of the Social Credit party. There are 400,000 unemployed in this country. Every one of those boys is a potential communist. Unless ways and means are devised of giving them something to do, or of maintaining them while they are unemployed, we shall not find the answer to communism. If that is not done the organizers and1 the "smoothies" to whom the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) referred can convert these men to their doctrine. These men will not say they are living in a democratic country, or that they have freedom, when they have not the right to work and the right to 'live as decent citizens. They are fertile soil for communist propaganda. This problem of unemployment must be solved.
Yesterday I suggested to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) that the unemployment insurance supplementary benefits be extended for a month. The minister said that unemployment is decreasing. It is not decreasing, and the department's figures show that it is not. There are no greater employment opportunities today than there were a month ago. If the problem is allowed to continue in that way, then we are handing over that body of men to the communist party. The causes of unemployment have to be removed. Another problem is the refusal of employers in this country to permit trade union organizations. In the gold mining industry in the north, the employer stands with a stick over the head of the worker denying him the right to organize and enjoy collective bargaining. Today our greatest instrument against communism is the trade union movement. In both congresses they are fighting the communists; they are throwing them out and placing them in a position where they cannot do their work. Still the employer refuses his employees their democratic right in industry, which would permit them to take their place in these congresses and carry on the fight against communism in that way.
I do not want to delay the house, Mr. Speaker. The member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and three of our group have spoken. I agree with practically everything that has been said by them, and I merely entered the debate because the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll) provoked my thoughts on a point about which I do not believe he was quite accurate.
I shall be quite brief, Mr. Speaker. I intend what I say to be aimed at bringing this matter down to a point of reality. I am not going to enter into any discussion as to whether or not the statutes which we have today are sufficient. I have had considerable experience with this crime called sedition, and have on occasion had some part in finding quite a number of persons guilty of that crime. I am sorry that in this debate there has arisen any suggestion as to the division of responsibility, or a passing of responsibility from one set of authorities to another.
I say that for this reason. Sedition, under the old section 98 or any new legislation which may be proposed and passed, necessarily has to do with the security of the state, and the security of our form of government, from which necessarily flows the freedom and security of our way of life. I do not think it is sufficient for anyone to say this is not the business of the dominion. The enforcement of the law and the Criminal Code rests with the provinces, but that has not been so in many instances where the government itself has felt that action was necessary. For example, I know personally that counsel are engaged and paid for by the dominion government in prosecuting cases under the Combines Investigation Act, or under those sections of the code which to my mind roughly do the same thing as the act itself. That was done because our way of doing business was threatened, because competition had been stifled. Under those circumstances, the dominion government-I am not saying a political word-as an entity has gone into the courts and taken charge of prosecutions of that kind.
Some time ago I referred to the royal commission, or the spy trials, as they are called. The dominion government, and more power to them, had no hesitation in taking two judges from our supreme court bench, in retaining the best available counsel, or in retaining the whole structure of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on that investigation, and subsequently accepted responsibility and directed those prosecutions. What for? For the very same purpose that we are talking about now. A great many fancy expressions are used which are really meaningless, Mr. Speaker. For more years than I can remember, I had been told of the great danger of driving communism underground. Physically, of course, that is impossible. From a mental standpoint or from the activity standpoint, I was much interested in what was said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) a moment ago, to the effect that if you arrested Tim Buck today you
Communist Activities in Canada would have difficulty in proving that he was a communist because, although you have his many admissions, you have not a recent one. What is that but being underground? Let us stop this nonsense of filling ourselves full of fear of driving something underground when it is underground now, just as far underground as it can possibly get.
Where do I go from there? What inference do I think may be fairly drawn from the many things said here, one or two of which I have said myself? I think every member of the House of Commons must make up his mind on one thing first. Is this thing here? Is it a menace? May this cold war lead to a fighting war? Do we believe that it may? I do, and I have no hesitation in saying so. That being so, personal safety and the preservation of one's life is certainly still nature's first law. As I am one of those who believe that all we read of the cold war is a matter of gaining time for some other kind of war, and as I believe the great idea of Moscow is to dominate this continent, I am proud to be one of those who will say: "I will do everything I can-and I will not have great regard for the niceties of phrasing-to fight that thing which in time may attack my children and my grandchildren." That is my view of what is going on at the present time. And I am not pleased-let me put it that way- with some of the niceties that we have been debating.
Let us just take a look at what appears in tonight's Journal. I will not read this in extenso, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know how many have seen it. The heading is "Red Dean Predicts Red World" and the article reads in part as follows:
Soviet might and manpower will smash the western democracies if war comes, Rev. Dr. Hewlett Johnson, the Red Dean of Canterbury, this morning told the Journal. He is a self-avowed communist.
The Red Dean said further:
1. War was imminent.
2. The democracies didn't have a chance of surviving, "not a dog's chance.''
for two columns. It should be read by everyone in this house. I think it is about time that that hairy old goat was either put in jail or put in his favourite spot. I am going to mention names. I say the same thing about this man Endicott whose father was put up at my own home many times years ago when attending a Methodist conference. But to think that we are going to sit back-complacently, if you like-and permit that sort of thing to go on without taking advantage of
Communist Activities in Canada what law we have is a mistake; and if we have not got enough, let us get a law to take care of blackguardism like that.
Any man in Canada, be he a Canadian or not, who recognizes and believes in some authority greater than that in his own country, I would certainly put in jail or put back in his favourite spot; and God rest his soul after that if these Russians ever got hold of him. We have got to put teeth in our law. I know that is an old expression. But as members of the House of Commons, let us make up our minds on this question: Is this thing real? That man quotes Stalin again and again in this interview as to what he thinks of it. He does not think war is imminent but it is inevitable. If it be true- and I am perhaps stupid enough to think that it is-that this cold war is a stalling for time for the shooting war that this beast of Moscow is going to let loose on this world when it suits him, he will have his Red Deans and his Endicotts commanding the fifth column legions right here in the Dominion of Canada.
No, Mr. Speaker, we cannot just sit back. We cannot just say, "This will wear itself out; it will wash away with the purity of our motives. It will wash away because we are going to grubstake them, we are going to sleep them and so on." That is nonsense. This is a bitter force being prepared to be unleashed upon us. We have done the best we can in the league of nations. Everywhere we have done the best we can, giving away and giving away; and at the same time giving away innocent souls in Europe and in Asia. So far as I am concerned, this is my reaction-and I think we would be all in agreement-on reading stuff like this, and as to believing it as coming from a man of God. Perhaps I should apologize for having used that expression; perhaps I should say from a man who assumes to be a man of God. In an interview the other day Endicott told our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) that Pearson goes on making war in his own way. Surely there is some pride left in us. Surely we do not need to take that. Surely we should put these rabble-rousing cutthroats where they belong-and that is in jail-or send them to some other country which, let me pray God, may be a long distance from here.