Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, when I tabled in mimeographed form, in both English and French, the report of the committee to study combines legislation, I referred to the fact that the French translation did not contain appendices setting out present and past legislation. I now table a French translation of these appendices.

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, at previous sittings of the house two members of the opposition have raised the question as to what action was to be taken with regard to Dr. James G. Endicott. I should like now to make a brief statement on the subject.

The Department of Justice has examined two issues of a communist publication entitled "Peace Review" and Dr. James G. Endicott's speech at Winnipeg of June 18, 1952, in order to determine whether Dr. Endicott and the publishers of this pamphlet should be prosecuted.

There is little in this speech of June 18 or these pamphlets which was not already contained in a speech of Dr. Endicott at Maple Leaf Gardens on May 11 last.

Dr. Endicott, as is well known, is an ordained minister of the gospel and a Doctor of Divinity. He is obviously permitting himself to be used as a tool by which the propaganda of the atheistic communist party is spread throughout the world, and I do not think that very many Canadians will be taken in by his statements. According to the information available to the Department of Justice, the activities of such people as Dr. Endicott and the promoters of the Canadian peace congress have had very little effect on public opinion.

It is probable that the ringleaders of the communist conspiracy would like us to prosecute their dupes and tools such as Dr. Endicott and the publishers and distributors of these peace pamphlets. Prosecution would give them more publicity and might give them the appearance of martyrs. It would probably not embarrass the communists if Dr. Endicott were prosecuted and convicted. On the contrary, it is altogether likely that their interests would be served by a conviction. So far as Dr. Endicott himself is concerned, a prosecution and conviction could add little to the discredit he has already brought upon himself by allying himself with the forces of oppression, terror and atheism. It is felt that the advantages of conducting a prosecution against him would be more than offset by the disadvantages.

The freedom of speech which Dr. Endicott has been so consistently abusing is the freedom of speech which all Canadian citizens enjoy. The freedom of the press which the Canadian peace congress abuses is the freedom of the press which every newspaper in Canada uses from day to day to discuss public events and criticize or defend government policy. These freedoms are what we regard as the fundamental rights of every citizen and of the press in a free society under democratic government. They are indivisible. In our consideration of Dr. Endicott's obvious abuse of these freedoms, we must be careful not to do anything to injure or destroy the freedom of all Canadian citizens and of all Canadian newspapers.

For these and other reasons, following the example of other free countries like the United Kingdom and France, the government of Canada proposes to take no action at this time against Dr. Endicott for his public support of the communist party line in the allegations, such as the libellous and false assertion that the United States, operating as part of the United Nations forces in Korea, is waging germ warfare. '

Each of Dr. Endicott's statements and each act of publication and of distribution of these pamphlets is a separate episode in the operation of the tools of the communist party in Canada. The fact that the government does not think that it is upon balance wise to prosecute for these acts now does not mean, of course, that Dr. Endicott and the publishers are being absolved from responsibility for their acts. Each of these acts has been noted

Questions

and if the time should come when it seemed wise to prosecute, each of them will be taken into account.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I should like to preface my remarks by saying that there can be no disagreement with what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has said with regard to freedom of speech, but is it not a fact that under the law as it now exists there would be no ground whatever for the prosecution of any person making statements such as Dr. Endicott has made, so long as they have to do with another country within the United Nations? In other words, there is no law at the present time that denies any person the right to say what he will in Canada about any other nation within the United Nations.

Mr. Garson:

If my hon. friend had listened to the statement which I have just read he would have heard in it no admission of the proposition which he has just put forward. The statement which I have just read does not purport to be in any sense a statement of law. It is a statement of policy. I am not to be taken for a moment as agreeing with what I understood my hon. friend to state as his understanding of what the law now is.

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, may I just say at this point that I think that what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has said is in the best traditions of democratic procedure. I want to congratulate him upon it. I think we all agree that what Dr. Endicott has done is detestable, but nonetheless I think it is well that, at this time when freedom of speech and freedom of the press is being destroyed in so many countries, we take the stand which the minister has taken.

1. Have the firm of Margison, Babcock and Associates Limited, of Toronto, been retained by the Department of Defence Production and/or the defence department or any branch thereof in connection with the design and/or installation of defence projects?

2. If so, what are their duties in connection with these projects?

3. When was this firm incorporated?

4. Who are the members of the firm?

5. Who are the active officers of the firm?

6. What qualifications and experience have these officers for the work in question?

7. What was the first date on which negotiations for any of these contracts were first entered into with (a) this company or (b) any person who is now a member of this company, and what was the name of the person, if any, referred to in part (b) ?

8. What was the first date on which any contract referred to in part 7 was awarded, to whom was it awarded, and what was the amount of the contract?

9. What is the total value of the contracts which have been let to or taken over by this firm to date?

10. What is the total of fees paid or payable to this firm for the work done to date?

11. For how many of these projects have contracts been awarded to this firm?

12. Are these contracts on a cost plus percentage fee basis? If so, what is the percentage fee?

1. Have any marriages been solemnized between Canadian servicemen serving in Korea, and (a) Korean girls; (b) Japanese girls?

2. If so, what arrangements have been made for bringing these war brides to Canada?

1. (a) No. (b) Ten.

2. These brides as dependents of Canadian servicemen are entitled to free passage to their destination in Canada in accordance with existing regulations. Wherever possible they will be accompanied by their husbands under arrangements made by the Canadian army.