Yes, and I am coming to that. I had not thought, after the debates of the three or four years past, that it would be necessary for us to say very much in regard to this measure, but I would point out to my hon. friend from West Calgary that, with regard to the legal aspects of this question, we could not do better than read the presentation which Senator Dandurand made last year in the Senate. I think that nowhere can a more carefully worded legal case be found than that which was presented last year. I desire to point out a few particulars incorporated into the bill with their bearings upon the right of freedom in this country. Here is one phrase that is used in the bill:
Anyone who assumes any powers of government in Canada-
That is a very broad phrase and has been interpreted in a very broad fashion. If, for example, a company should maintain its own police force it is thereby assuming what is in reality a governmental function. Of course as a matter of fact nobody would prosecute a huge corporation, even though its officials had assumed governmental functions. In the case however of an industrial dispute, when certain labour people attempt to exercise discipline over their membership, it may be interpreted as the assumption of powers of government. Another phrase in the act reads: Anyone who by common repute belongs to, or is suspected of belonging to-
I submit that is going altogether too far, even with the word " criminal There are many people who, by common repute, are desperate characters. I see the hon. member for Labelle smiling. I am quite sure that in certain sections of the country, by common repute, he is far from being a worthy citizen of Canada.
Subtopic: REPEAL OP PROVISION FOR DEPORTATION OP CERTAIN CLASSES