[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) moved:
That the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on May 44 last, be now concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, I am not asking for any personal favour. As always, I represent the views of my electors, who have been very good to me and who do not want the wishes or suggestions of outsiders to be substituted for theirs. During the first days of the year there were some people at Trois Pistoles who thought it would be well to make a new county from part of Temis-couata and part of Rimouski. But as the combined population of Temiscouata and Rimouski is about 100,000, there are not enough people to make a third constituency. If it was the wish of my electors to make a different choice, I would have agreed to it because I would not go against the expressed will of the people. However, their desire, as manifested by petitions, is to Stay in Temiscouata county; therefore I submit that a request or petition made by outsiders should have no weight with the redistribution committee.
My electors do not complain of the redistribution committee; they are satisfied with the work that has been done under my esteemed colleague the hon. member for Outre-
Standing Orders
[Stage Direction]
mont (Mr. Rinfret). I want to pay a special tribute to him for the arduous and painstaking work he has done in an effort to give justice to everybody.
It is not my desire to embark upon a discussion of the report -of the redistribution committee in connection with other constituencies. All I am dealing with now is the report of the committee on standing orders, to which committee has been referred the petitions which I have tabled. After they were tabled they were examined by the clerk of the committee, and he said that the petitions were not drawn in proper form and therefore should not be received. Then I argued that some of the forms were antiquated, and I thank the lion, member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) for the support that he gave me on that occasion. He spoke as a great parliamentarian, as he always does; what he said has been appreciated by my electors on whose behalf I speak today, and I convey their thanks to him. I cannot thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Beauchesne, but I can express to you the deep appreciation of my electors of the spirit of fairness that you showed -on that occasion. When the matter was brought before the committtee another one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight), spoke very well, and expressed in the committee views similar to those which have been expressed in the house by the lion, member for Peel. To him also I convey the thanks of my electors.
I shall not take up much of the time of the house but I have here some very fine articles which have been published in different papers, Montreal Matin of May 5, the Ottawa Journal of May 6, the Toronto Daily Star of May 9 and the Ottawa Journal -of May 14; and if I am allowed to do so I shall table them in order to save time.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to place on the record these reports from newspapers?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. POULIOT:: Thank you.
Montreal Matin, Lundi, 5 mai, 1947 Evitons les "chinoiseries"
Nos grammairiens se sont montres tres injus-tes a 1'egard des Orientaux quand ils ont permis que le mot "chinoiserie" servit a designer toute demarche, manifestation ou reglement inutile.
Mais nous n'y pouvons rien et, a maintes reprises, l'occasion nous est fournie de nous plaindre de "chinoiseries" particulierement de "chinoiseries administratives". Celles-la sont abondan-tes:	jamais, probablement, n'y en a-t-il eu
autant.
La plus recente, c'est M. Jean-Franqois Pouliot, depute de Temiseouata, qui l'a signalde alors que deux petitions presentees par un groupe de ses commettants risquaient d'etre

raises de cotes, parce qu'elles n'etaient pas redigees dans les termes precis exiges par les reglements.
Les e'lecteurs de Temiseouata, en personnes intelligentes, ont abrege. Comme l'expliquait M. Pouliot, "ils ont expose ce qu'ils voulaient en langage simple et tres clair". Or, selon les reglements de la Chambre, e'etait trop clair, trop simple, trop abrege surtout, d'oii l'inter-vention du depute de Temiseouata pour empe-cher que la requete aille tout droit au panier.
Rien d'etonnant que certaines lois et ordon-nances soient tellement emberlificotees, si l'on songe qu'elles sont l'ceuvre de legislateurs ne prisant guere un langage simple et clair et preferant, au contraire, les formalizes sura-bondantes qui compliquent et... embetent.
The Ottawa Journal Tuesday, May 6, 1947 The Form or the Substance
Mr. Jean-Franqois Pouliot, member for Temiseou-a-ta, brought an extraordinary ruling to the attention of the House of Commons the other day. Two petitions signed by hundreds of electors in that riding and addressed to the House were refused consideration, he said, because they	did	not	use the prescribed
"sacramental wards".
The petitions, Mr. Pouliot explained, had to do with redistribution, and were tabled in the ordinary way,	but	were	not turned	over tothe Redistribution Committee because they did not conform to ceremonial practice. "They were addressed", said the Member for Temis-couata, "to Mr. Speaker and to members of the H-ouse of Commons instead of -to the Honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled". That was the first offence. But worse was to come. The prescribed words "The petition	of	the	undersigned	humblyslieweth" were missing, the argument was not divided into paragraphs each beginning with the word "That", and the conclusion omitted the prescribed formality, "And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray". His electors, said Mr. Pouliot, were not strong on red tape, but	they	had	made their	meaning
dear and plain.
Mr. Graydon supported Mr. Pouliot's request that the petitions be sent on to their intended destination, and the Speaker -promised to look into the matter. Mr. Graydon's words were very sensible. "We should not be governed so much by the form as by the substance of a petition such as this", he said. "When the common people of Canada decide that they want to petition the House of Commons we should place as few obstacles as possible in the way."
With that doctrine we thoroughly agree. Parliament is the servant of the people, not its master, and nothing is less important than the form a petition to Parliament takes. If it is the honest expression of a group of electors ou a -matter -of public concern, expressed in decent and intelligible language, obviously it should be received and considered, and if the rules interfere then the rules should be changed.
Toronto Daily Star Friday, May 9, 1947 Jean-Franeois Scored That Time
That genial man and Independent Liberal, Jean-Franeois Pouliot of Temiseouata, gets sometimes upon the nerves of parliament. But

Standing Orders
when it comes to an issue of red tape vs. common sense, Jean-Francois is usually on the right side. He was on the right side the other day when he protested the rejection of two petitions which had been forwarded by his constituents.
It is a fundamental principle of democracy that the electors should have no difficulty in making their wishes known to their parliamentary representatives; if not personally, at least by letter. The post office recognizes this and charges no postage on letters to or from members at Ottawa during a session or ten days prior to it. It is also in accord with democratic principles that a group of individuals should have the right to contact parliament as a whole by way of a petition. That their petition must contain certain specified phrases may be a rule of parliament, but it is a rule which should not be too closely insisted upon.
In the present instance, certain electors of Temiscouata wished to protest a proposed change in their riding under the redistribution, and Mr. Pouliot presented two petitions from them to that effect, believing that these would be received and go to the redistribution committee. But they got tangled up in red tape. The rules say that petitions should be addressed to "the Honourable the House of Commons in parliament assembled." These were addressed to "Mr. Speaker and members of the House of Commons." The prescribed words, "the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth," were omitted, as were the closing words the rules call for, "and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray." Moreover, the petitions were not divided into paragraphs, each beginning with "that"-evidently a particularly heinous fault. On these grounds the petitions were turned down.
It is no wonder that Mr. Pouliot protested. Mr. Gordon Graydon backed him up and said: "We should not be governed so much by the form as by the substance of a petition such as this. When the common people of Canada decide that they want to petition the House of Commons, we should place as few obstacles as possible in the way of their getting their views tabled in the House. I suggest that we waive any technicalities in this matter and allow the petition presented by the hon. member for Temiscouata to be tabled as he suggests."
Hansard does not record that Mr. Graydon's remarks evoked a cheer, but they should have done so. At any rate, Mr. Pouliot got action. The Speaker explained that "the House is not seized (what a word!) of a petition addressed to the members without mentioning the words 'in parliament assembled.' " The omission of "and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray," was not so serious. The learned authority "May" agrees that while those words are "generally added," they are not necessary. In any event there was a way out. Mr. Pouliot could move that the petitions go to the committee on standing orders-which he did. And no doubt the committee on redistribution will finally get them.
But what nonsense it is to insist on stilted and archaic forms of expression. One of these days someone will faint if "sheweth" in a petition appears as "showeth", or if a bill is "entitled" instead of "intituled." Let red tape perish!
The Ottawa Journal Wednesday, May 14, 1947 Those Lett"' Rules
The other day Mr. Pouliot complained in the Commons that the house had refused to receive some petitions from electors in his riding, Temiscouata, because they were not couched in the prescribed phraseology. The petitions had to do with redistribution, and their natural destination was the special committee dealing with that problem. Mr. Graydon in the discussion supported Mr. Pouliot's contention that since the desire of the petitioners was clearly expressed the wording of the document should not prevent them from being heard.
This week the question came before the standing orders committee of the house, and it refused to accept the petitions on the ground that they were improperly worded and did not conform to precedent-the reason also was advanced that to let them go on to the redistribution committee would be contrary to the ruling of the present and former speakers.
This time it was Mr. Knight of Saskatoon wha in the standing orders committee, opposed so fine an example of red tape and hampering custom. He took the ground that any citizen should have the right to take his case to parliament, and that antiquated rules should not stand in the way-"the spirit is much more important than the letter."
However the majority were against him, and against Mr. Pouliot and Mr. Graydon. We think it was an unfortunate ruling. We do not know what the Temiscouata petitioners ask, and it does not matter. What matters is that they have something they want to say to the House of Commons and are refused a hearing because of their ignorance of certain formalities set out many years ago.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, is not this matter already before the redistribution committee of the House of Commons?


James Horace King: I have been listening to the hon. member and awaiting to call attention to the fact that he should not discuss on his motion the redistribution of representation, as that matter has been referred to a committee of the house. Of course he is allowed to discuss the form of the petition which has been refused by the clerk of petitions.


Jean-François Pouliot: Here is the report to which I refer, the main part of which I shall read in a few moments. There was also a letter and a petition from his worship the mayor of Squatteck, which will be submitted in due course to the committee on standing orders according to the procedure which has been established. But, sir, there are two points which I desire to consider in my brief remarks. They are the two points which have been raised by the committee on standing orders. This is a question of parliamentary procedure, and I took the trouble to analyse what was said about that matter.
Standing Orders

The rule previous to standing order No. 1 read as follows:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter or by sessional or other orders, the rules, usages and forms of proceedings of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in force on the first day of July, 1867, shall be followed.
That was observed when the rules were amended in 1906. I hold in my hand the Votes and Proceedings of March 15, 1927, and there is an explanation under that old rule which reads as follows:
This rule prevents the house from accepting in unprovided cases the practice followed in Great Britain since the first of July, 1867. There is no valid reason why English precedents, where Canadian ones do not exist, should not be accepted irrespective of the dates at which they were established.
Which means rhat we can go very far back for precedents. I quote again:
The rule goes too far inasmuch as it compels the house to follow the British rules in force prior to 1867. It is somewhat difficult to be governed in any case by the rules of the British parliament as they do not always suit our conditions, whilst there is a better scope for meeting all requirements in accepting as guides its customs and usages.
In other words and according to the quotation I have just given, English procedure and customs and usages where Canadian ones do not exist, shall be accepted irrespective of the dates at which they were established. They offer a better scope for meeting all requirements and they shall be accepted as guides.
May says at page 794:
The right of petitioning the crown and parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution. It has been uninterruptedly exercised from very early times, and has had a profound effect in determining the main forms of parliamentary procedure.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica is much more honest than May in that regard. It contains the following: "The political importance of petitioning dates from about the reign of Charles I," who was beheaded in 1649. "The development of the practice of petitioning had proceeded so far in the reign of Charles II, as to lead to the passing in 1662 of an act (13 Charles II, chapter 5) against "tumultuous petitioning", which is still on the statute book . . . And in 1817 (57 George III, chapter 19, section 23) meetings within a mile from Westminster Hall for the purpose of considering a petition to either house of parliament while either house is sitting were declared to be unlawful assemblies."


Mr. COLDWELL:: What date was that?


Jean-François Pouliot: That was in 1817.

The first edition of "A Treatise on the Law, Principles and Usage of Parliament" by Sir Thomas Erskine May, Clerk of the House of Commons "was in preparation exactly fifty years ago (1843-44) during those halcyon days of parliamentary existence when the standing orders of the House of Commons, now ninety-seven in number, were only fourteen"-I counted only ten-"when no rule or order prescribed that previous notice should be given a motion, however important; and when a motion might be met by any form of amendment, however grotesquely irrelevant. Excluding the standing orders which require the recommendation of the crown to motions involving a money change, and which regulate the presentation of petitions, the parliamentary procedure of 1844 was essentially the procedure on which the House of Commons conducted business during the Long parliament." This is from the preface of the tenth edition of May which has not been reproduced in the 14th.
In the very last of his countless last speeches, delivered on the eve of his resignation as Prime Minister of England, I heard Stanley Baldwin speak as follows at the Empire day and coronation banquet of the combined empire societies in London on May 24, 1937:
If you will only do as I have done, study the history of the growth of the constitution, from the time of the civil war until the Hanoverians came to the throne, you will see what a country can do without the aid of logic, but with the aid of common sense. Therefore my next point is: do not let us put any part of our constitution in a strait-waistcoat, because strangulation is the ultimate fate. And I would say one more thing: do not let us be too keen on definition.
How could anyone reason with the aid of common sense and without the aid of logic? I may therefore be excused for not following the advice of the right hon. gentleman, as I intend to be keen on definitions with the aid of both logic and common sense.
The same year the empire parliamentary conference met at Westminster Hall, which no building in the United Kingdom overshadows in historic importance. It is haunted by the ghost of Charles I, Warren Hastings, Sir Thomas More, Lambert, the Earl of Strafford and the cynically humorous old "Fox of the North", Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat; and' many of the ceremonies in connection with the coronation of English kings were enacted under its lofty timbered roof. The Right Hon. Sir John Simon, who was then Secretary of State for Home Affairs, and who had been described as "a great statesman, an expert.

Standing Orders
politician, and a great constitutional lawyer", made an amazing speech in which he asked this strange question:
Do you think that ministers of the crown will be able to continue under the increasing pressure and speed of modern conditions to do their work as ministers, and to sit in the legislature as well?
As I was invited to speak immediately after him, I gave my answer to the question, and it was as follows:
There is the alternative of suppressing either one or the other. If we suppress the cabinet the situation would be the same, because every member of parliament will be a cabinet minister and we shall have anarchy. If parliament is suppressed we shall have fascism, which Mr. Dillon hates and Mr. Danebury detests.
The subject matter of the discussion being, "The future of parliamentary government", I spoke of the parliamentary procedure of the British empire.
The first standing order was passed in 1707, and there were only, four in 1821. I made a comparison with the Quebec legislature, which has 688 rules, and I expressed the view that the rules of the various legislative bodies of the British empire were much more complete and to the point than those of Westminster. A New Zealand delegate said that he could conceive of a parliament being conducted without any standing orders at all. "I do not think", said he, "that the question of standing orders has very much weight so far as parliamentary' institutions are concerned. If you have a Speaker who is a fair and just man, if you have tolerance in the chamber so that you listen to what others have to say, and if you follow the Speaker's ruling, I do not think it matters very much whether there are written standing orders or not."
He expressed the view that we should rely on the spirit of fairness of the Speaker and the spirit of tolerance of our fellow members, as I do now.
Sir Thomas Erskine May, who has been acknowledged as the main authority on the law, privilege, proceedings and usage of parliament, was born in London in 1815, the year of Waterloo. He was only sixteen when, in 1831, the Speaker of the House of Commons nominated him to the post of assistant librarian. At the time of his appointment there were only' four standing orders, but countless were the precedents of every description.
In 1818 Hatsell had published a book entitled "Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons." May decided to do better, and he was given "the kind assistance of many gentlemen" to write a book which he filled with all the precedents he could gather,
without using proper discernment. He included even those that were, according to his own description, "grotesquely irrelevant", and he went so far as to fabricate precedent. He was only twenty-nine when his illegible book was published. Twenty-seven years later he was appointed clerk of the House of Commons. He was raised to the peerage in 1886, under the title of Baron Farnborough of Farn-borough, in the county of Southampton, a few days before his death.
He was born a collector, and his so-called treatise would be compared to the house which the Collyer brothers, who died not long ago in downtown New York, had filled with junk. The editors sell the revised fourteenth edition of the book for only $30.
The main portion of the report of the committee on standing orders reads as follows:
Authorities on parliamentary procedure and practice, which are binding on the house under standing order 68, are unanimous in declaring: (1) that all petitions should commence with the superscription: "To the Honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled"; (2) that the conclusion should be the prayer, without which no petition is in order.
The only way to check up the authorities in the matter of precedents is to find out the first precedent. To my great surprise I discovered that Bourinot, 4th edition, pages 234 to 235, referred to May, page 525; and to my greater surprise I found out that May, 13th edition, 1924, page 610 and 14th edition, 1946, page 795, had no ruling to quote to support his contention that petitions to the House of Commons should be superscribed, "To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in parliament assembled." In fact he quoted no ruling whatever for his suggestion of an antiquated form of petition to the House of Commons, which has been reverently followed by all the authors on parliamentary practice for over a century.
Standing order 68 mentions only "a petition to the house". What is "the house" if it is not "Mr. Speaker and Messrs, the members of the House of Commons"? I have the evidence of Hansard to show that the petitions were tabled when the house was assembled. Why should we be bound to use nowadays the formula which May took upon himself to suggest 103 years ago? Is it not musty, rancid, decayed and out of date?
Now I come to the prayer. May says, at pages 795 and 796 that-
Without a prayer a document will not be taken as a petition.
He gives two references, namely Commons Journal, 1651-59, page 427 and Commons
Standing Orders

Journal, 1843, page 457. I looked up the first reference at page 427 of volume 7 of the Commons Journal for September 23, to 25, 1656. History tells us that it was during the protectorate of Cromwell, and four years before the restoration of Charles II in 1660. There was nothing to support May's declaration. I turned the pages of that old book and read on page 171 that on August 27, 1652 a committee for petitions was appointed to meet in the Star Chamber. Those who have revised May's book have been right on one point, when they wrote in the preface to the tenth edition that "the parliamentary procedure of 1844 was essentially the procedure on which the House of Commons conducted business during the Long Parliament," and it is still the same today. It has not changed with the times.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I will call to the attention of hon. members of the house the reference given by May in the latest, the fourteenth, edition published in February, 1946. Ten references to remonstrances, signatures, forgery or fraud on petitions date back to two centuries before the reform bill of 1832. They are in the Commons Journals for the following years:	1667 to 1687; 1688
to 1693; 1772 to 1774; 1792 to 1793; 1807; 1812 and 1813; 1817; 1821; 1826 and 1827; 1831. This book was out of the press last year. Could it be called a modern book?
May's second reference to the necessity of the prayer on petitions was Commons Journal of July 7, 1843, in the seventh year of Victoria, page 457. There was no ruling of the Chair about it. All I found was that a remonstrance of the secretary of the National Association, praying the house to establish better representative government, had been laid on the table and it was withdrawn the following Monday. Doctor Johnson calls "remonstrance"-strong representation.
There are so many interchangeable words in the dictionary that they have given birth to basic English. I looked up the Dictionary of the English Language by Doctor Samuel Johnson and I notice there that the words petition, request, supplication, prayer, entreaty, solicitation were interchangeable. Here is what he said with regard to "prayer."
1.	Petition to heaven.
2.	Mode of petition.
3.	Practice of supplication.
4.	Single formula of petition.
Then in the Oxford dictionary I find, at the word "prayer", under 5:
The thing prayed for or entreated; specifically that part of a memorial or petition that specifies this.

This is Middle English. And the petitions to the Commons, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, shall be as follows:
Must be in writing; must contain none hut genuine signatures, and must be free from disrespectful language or imputations upon any tribunal or constituted authority.
And May, at page 795, says:
The general allegations of the petition are concluded by what is called the "prayer," in which the particular object of the petitioner is expressed.
And it adds:
To the whole petition are generally added these words of form: "And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray," et cetera, to which are appended the signatures or marks of the parties.
Bourinot, fourth edition, says at page 234:
The conclusion should be "the prayer," without which no petition is in order. This prayer should tersely and clearly express the particular object which the petitioner has in view in coming before parliament.
The parliamentary meaning of "prayer", in Middle English, was that of "request" in modern language. Let us sweep away the dust of self-complacency and revise our rules and create our own precedents in conformity with modern times. This is to show that "May", who has been blindly quoted as an authority and accepted as such by other authors throughout the British empire, is outdated, because he and those who have revised his book have shown no discrimination and no discernment in the selection of precedents, and it is time that the House of Commons of Canada should have the rules revised in conformity with modem times.
I express my appreciation to the committee on standing orders who have forwarded the petitions which have been submitted to the house as exhibits to the redistribution committee. The question is not at all the word "petition", or "remonstrance", or any other word. The question is that the electors whom we represent shall have the opportunity at any time to get in touch with the House of Commons.
Sometimes a letter is wrongly addressed but it usually gets to its destination just the same and there are very few dead letters. I remember once a letter was addressed to "Jean-Frangois Pouliot, Deputy Minister of National Defence", but I got it and answered it.


Mr. MacNICOL:: You would have made a good minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was a good letter too. I do not pay much attention to the address so long as I receive the letter, and the so-called petitions of my electors have been

Standing Orders
sent here not to request anything, not to make a remonstrance to the House of Commons, but just to express their opinion to the House of Commons, as they have a right to do. If I insist again on this matter it is because I thought that documents that bore the signatures of the independent electors of Temiscouata should find their way to the right place, to the redistribution committee.
Something happened which was a precedent. I was unavoidably absent from Ottawa on the morning when the matter was referred to the standing orders committee, and who came to my defence? It was editorials which appeared in the press supporting what had been said by my friends the hon. member for Peel and the hon. member for Saskatoon City, who took the same view before the committee as the former did in the house.
I express the high appreciation of my electors to these great papers, Montreal Matin, Toronto Star and the Ottawa Journal. Those *who wrote these editorials have shown their readers that they are true to the very best traditions of the British parliamentary system. If I have had some difficulty, it was due to some opportunists outside my county-there are no opportunists in my constituency. There were three or four outside. One apparently was kidnapped during my first election. He was no more kidnapped than anyone here, but he disappeared like the prophet Elijah, although he was not in a chariot of fire. He is considered as one of his own class. The other was a young man who had no military record and who during the war was writing very hard letters to a N.R.M.A. man from the registrar's office in Quebec, and I complained bitterly about him at the time. He is just a little intriguer who wants to find a political nest for himself. But I know very well that these people who went to my electors and the electors of Rimouski telling them that my colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Belzile) and myself were for change, were liar's; and strangely enough they were supported by the parrot of the cream separators of the Quebec reform club, the legitimate heirs of the unforgettable Quebec Nipple club. I do not care about that. I thank the house, and I thank my colleagues who have supported me. I thank all my colleagues, and especially thank the committee on standing orders. I also thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. E. O. BERTRAND (Prescott):: It
would appear that in this matter, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is complaining about the action taken by the standing orders committee, although he did it in an indirect manner. In
order to keep the record straight, to protect the procedure of the house and give a certain amount of explanation it would probably be well if a word or two were said about what has really taken place, in order to complete the record.
Under date of May 5, your committee received from the house the following reference;
That the petitions presented by the electors of the parishes of Ste. Rita, St. Cyprien, St. Paul de la Croix, St. Emile d'Auclair, Notre Dame de Sept Douleurs and St. Jean Baptiste de l'lsle-Verte be referred to the standing committee on standing orders.
These petitions had been presented to the house by the hon. member for Temiscouata. In his report thereon, under date of April 30 and May 1, the clerk of petitions stated that the petitions were not drawn in proper form and therefore could not be received.
I have listened with great care to what was said by the hon. member for Temiscouata, and although he claims that he wants the committee's report to be supported by the house, he is making all sorts of complaints with regard to it, claiming apparently that red tape is being used and that the voice of the people at large is not being heard by the house. This is not at all the case.
Having regard to the report made by the clerk of petitions it would appear that the question to be decided by the committee was whether or not in this case the rules of the house and the forms sanctioned by practice with regard to the wording of a public petition had been observed. Without taking too much of the time of the house, and referring to the documents under consideration, may I say first of all that Your Honour, the Speaker, had stated in the house on May 5 that the house is not seized of a petition addressed to the members unless mention is made of the words "in parliament assembled", which statement the hon. member for Temiscouata criticized severely. It was pointed out that the petitions were not properly addressed and the clerk of petitions reported that they could not be received. This decision given by the clerk and by Your Honour is only the practice confirmed by the rules which have been enforced by this house in the past, and following precedent. The practice was enforced by Hon. Mr. Rhodes, a former Speaker. It was enforced by the rules and regulations in days gone by.
Naturally we should like that report of the standing committee on standing orders to be accepted as such, but not with the remarks which were made by the hon. member foi Temiscouata. After all, we claim that we as the committee on standing orders are the
Old Age Pensions

guardians of the rules of procedure of the house; and that your committee had no alternative in this case but to report that the documents in question purporting to be petitions were not drawn in accordance with the rules of practice and not properly addressed and therefore should not be received.
If our report is to be voted upon, as chairman of the committee, I should like to make it plain that it is being accepted by this house in the terms in which it has been presented to the house by the committee and not on the recommendations which the hon. member for Temiscouata made in his address.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of
privilege. I said nothing critical about the ruling of the committee. I moved the adoption of the report. But I said that May is bunk, and I repeat that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in French and English of P.C. 1732, dated Thursday, May 15, 1947, being the revised1 regulations passed under the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act.
These regulations were worked out in consultation with the representatives of the nine provinces at a meeting of the interprovincial old age pensions board, November 26-28, 1946. Following that meeting, it was necessary to put in textual form the changes agreed upon and to submit them to the respective governments for final approval. This has now been done, and in accordance with section 20 of the Old Age Pensions Act, the regulations are now in effect as of May 15, the date of their publication in the Canada Gazette.
I might point out that it is estimated that the effect of these regulations will be to relax the present restrictions applying to applicants for pension and to the circumstances under which pensions may be granted. The regulations have been completely revised and made more generous in their application.
I would draw to the attention of the house in particular the changes which have been made in the regulations dealing with the means by which an applicant may prove his age and the regulations regarding residence and calculation of income. These regulations have been relaxed in favour of the old age pensioner. Section 16 of the regulations in par-

ticular, defining income, provides that certain types of income listed under no less than eight different headings shall be ignored in calculating the amount of income which a pensioner is entitled to have and still be eligible for pension under the act. Changes are also made with regard to the method of assessing the income value of real property which a pensioner may have and still be eligible for pension. Distinction is made between the calculation of the income value of property which is used as a home and property which is not used as a home.
These and other changes are all calculated to relax in some degree the present restrictions which apply, through the act and regulations, to old age pensioners.


Mr. KNOWLES:: May I ask whether that order in council could be printed in the
Votes and Proceedings?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is in the Gazette.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 207 for the relief of Evelyn Florence Esson Pugh.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 208 for the relief of Katie Rhoda Brick McGrath.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 209 for the relief of Louise Guiol Ghetler.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 210 for the relief of George William Curtis Johnston.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 211 for the relief of Melville Mae Rundle Swinburne.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 212 for the relief of Ruby Weldrick Hunt.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 213 for the relief of Doris Shaprio Kolman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 214 for the relief of Mary Margaret Rider Brown.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 215 for the relief of Fennie Nettie Adelstein Waldman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 216 for the relief of Gustave Lucien Verhelle.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 217 for the relief of Ruby Campbell Matts.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 218 for the relief of Dorothy Kathleen Morrison Germain.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 219 for the relief of Sophie Rad-wolsky Closner.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 220 for the relief of Muriel Emma Wood Durrell.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 221 for the relief of William John Carmichael.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 222 for the relief of Guido Verdoni. -Mr. Maybank.

Questions
Bill No. 223 for the relief of Ronald John Park.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 224 for the relief of Gloria Avon Roland.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 225 for the relief of Gilberto (Albert) Belmonte.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 226 for the relief of Mildred Lillian Flude.-Mr. Smith (York North).
Bill No. 227 for the relief of Pauline Joan Hyde Murphy.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 228 for the relief of Alsye Mae Lissemore Lawrence.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 229 for the relief of Jessie Leonard Simpson Clunie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 230 for the relief of Fern Catherine Kerr Ekins.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 231 for the relief of Lilly Elizabeth Ingborg Lindfors Crowhurst.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	232,	for	the	relief	of	Romeo
Richard.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	233,	for	the	relief	of	Charles
Augustus Dolling.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	234,	for	the	relief	of	Charles
Frederick McDowall.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Woolf (Robert) Cook.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Adele Brown Kerkofsky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Ellen Heathcote Taschereau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	238,	for	the	relief of	Molly
Marcovitch Schwartz.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Betty Gertrude Bernstein Sdhreiber.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Margaret Joan Anstey Steven Hyslop.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Elly Zahn Kaminsky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Naomi Joan Williamson Cantlie.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Matilda Jane Cumming.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Agnes Dowd Brown.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Ursula Catherine Tetreau Black.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 248. for the relief of Eleanor Edith McKechnie Martineau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Jack Wallis.-[DOT] Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Evelyn Margaret Morrison Cryer.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Frances Eileen Scribner Mackay.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Irene Laflamme Kattas.-Mr. Maybank.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the first reading of Bill No. 240 (from the senate), to incorporate the Port Alberni harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. M. BENIDICKSON (Kenora-Rainy River) moved the first reading of Bill No. 241 (from the senate), respecting the Ottawa Electric Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. NICHOLSON:: During each of the last ten years for which complete returns are available, how many persons in Canada, after paying dominion income taxes, had net incomes (a) in excess of $25,000 per year; (b) $10,000 to $25,000 per year; (c) $5,000 to $10,000 per year; (d) $2,500 to $5,000 per year; (e) $1,000 to $2,500 per year?


Mr. McCANN:: Information of the nature requested can only be provided for 1941 and subsequent years and is only complete for the years 1941 and 1942. As the figures are derived from statistics relating to taxpayers there is an unavoidable understatement in the lowest income classes due to the exemption levels applying to married taxpayers which were $1,500 in 1941 and Sl,200 in 1942. Married persons with incomes below these levels would not be included. Subject to this important reservation, the requested figures are contained in the following estimated table:
Income	Estimated Number
After	of Taxpayers
Tax	1941	1942
Over $25,000 ______________ 621	558
$10,000-$25,000	
5,005	5,7715.000-	10,000	
27,373	32,1782,500- 5,000	
105,896	192,3571.000-	2.500	
567,114	1,166,826


IMMIGRATION
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	How many applications have been received from individuals in each of the provinces for admission of relatives in Europe to Canada since September 30, 1945?
Questions

2.	How many immigrants, exclusive of dependents of servicemen, have been granted admission to Canada as of April 15, 1947?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	Information not available.
2.	36,873 immigrants exclusive of servicemen's dependents were admitted to Canada between September 30, 1945, and March 31, 1947. Figures for the period subsequent to the last mentioned date are not yet available.
WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-* SASKATCHEWAN


Mr. McKAY:: 1 How many houses have been constructed or are under construction in Canada by wartime housing corporation, since January 1, 1947?
2.	How many of these houses have been erected or are in course of erection in Saskatchewan?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	2,763 housing units have been completed by Wartime Housing Limited between January 1, 1947 and May 3, 1947. This figure includes housing units the construction of which was started during 1946.
1,857 housing units were under construction by Wartime Housing Limited as of May 3, 1947.
2.	361 housing units have been completed by Wartime Housing Limited in the province of Saskatchewan between January 1, 1947 and May 3, 1947. This figure includes housing units the construction of which was started during 1946.
284 housing units were under construction by Wartime Housing Limited in Saskatchewan as of May 3, 1947.


AIRPORT CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	Are customs services given without charge to American planes at Canadian airports?
2.	Are similar services given by American airports to Canadian planes free of charge? If not, what charges are made?
3.	Has the government attempted to make a reciprocal agreement with the United States regarding airport customs regulations?
4.	If so, with what success?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Planes owned or chartered by private individuals and entering Canada for purposes of health or pleasure are given Canadian customs service without charge except in certain rare instances when they are required to pay for a taxi or other special transportation to bring the customs officer to the airport.
Commercial planes opearting on scheduled runs are given free Canadian customs service during "authorized hours" of attendance at international airports. They are subject to
CMr. Castleden.]
overtime charges outside of such regular hours and in certain cases are required to provide free transportation for customs officers.
2.	No information.
3.	The Canadian government is fully represented at the International civil aviation organization, which is presently engaged in considering international standards and recommended practices on customs, immigration, sanitary and related matters facilitating international air transport.
4.	Standards and recommended practices have already been adopted and approved by a number of member states. Canada has already acted on some of the standards and practices recommended.


WAR ASSETS-PROPERTY AT FORT RAMSAY, QUE.
Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	Has any land or buildings located at Fort Ramsay, Gaspe, Quebec, been sold by war assets corporation?
2.	If so, to whom, and at what price?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes. Sixty-seven buildings and one water tank have been sold but no land has been disposed of.
2.	To the following purchasers at prices indicated:
(a)	Buildings Nos. 5, 6, 23, 24, 30, 32 and 52, to the government of the province of Quebec for $6,761.60
(b)	Buildings Nos. 3 and 8, to the government of the province of Quebec for $17,000. These buildings were sold for use at their present location. The land involved was leased to the province and the lease contains a provision that the dominion government may reclaim the land in the event of a war or a national emergency.
(c)	Buildings Nos. 1, 7, 9, 31, 46 and a woodstave water tank, to the government of the province of Quebec for $7,120, under the same conditions of sale as outlined in (b) above.
(d)	Five buildings, to the dominion department of Public Works for $953.
(e>
Six buildings, to the Co-operative d'Electricite de Gaspe Sud for $9,200.
(f)	J Two buildings, to Mr. Henri Laforest, the owner of the land on which they are located, for $300. The land had been leased to the crown and the sale was part of the lease settlement.
(g)	Building No. 56, to Mr. Raymond Trachy for $205.
(h)	Thirty-seven buildings, to Sasseville & Laroche for $32,200.

Questions
(i)	Two buildings, to Shell Oil Company of Canada Limited for $670.
Note: The buildings described in 2(a), (d),
(e), (g), (h) and (i) above were sold for removal from their present sites with the condition that the purchasers restore the land to its original condition.


INCOME WAR TAX ACT-UNIFORMITY OF PROVISIONS-EXCHANGES OF STAFFS
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	What action has the government taken to ensure uniformity of application of the provisions of the Income War Tax Act as these affect the farmers of the different provinces?
2.	Does any exchange of staff take place between the Manitoba office and the Ontario and Quebec offices?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Meetings of the staff have taken place from time to time at which the various problems and matters of interpretation have been reviewed with a view to achieving uniformity. Further meetings will be held in the near future.
2.	Occasional exchanges have taken place in the past. These will be more frequent in the future, especially when housing conditions improve.


PARI-MUTUEL TAX
Mr. MacNAUGHT:: What amount was collected by the government from pari-mutuel tax since the inception of the tax by (a) provinces; (b) years?


James Joseph McCann: 


EXCISE DIVISION.
[Stage Direction]
Statement showing the amount collected by the government t rom pari-mutuel tax since the inception of the tax
by (A) provinces (B) years.
(A)	1941-42	1942-43	1943-44	1944-45	1945-46	1946-47	TotalsNova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	$ 1,853.40 3,029.90 48,590.35 705,450.76 104,668.30 21,300.75 46,017.80 150,896.75	$ 4,384.66 3,776.70 78.20 49,902.85 872,044.62 119,964.80 19,487.75 36,394.40 181,297.15	$ 7,271.32 6,007.00 279.20 80,405.40 1,087,860.01 159,890.45 22,068.45 38,422.20 280,341.30	$ 9,985.00 8,655.50 1,430.40 93,442.75 1,171,727.34 173,787.55 30,347.45 106,277.65 308,440.85	$ 15,869.55 12,479.90 4,407.95 104.856.30 1,343,884.29 193.964.30 36,054.35 133,485.55 342,966.70	$ 20,286.80 14,269.10 6,180.70 68,510.90 1,587,652.17 225,479.65 41,865.62 161,277.35 384,689.60	$ 59,650.73 48,218 10 12,376.45 445,708.55 6,768,619.19 977,755.05 171,124.37 521,874.95 1,648,632.35(B) Totals	$1,081,808.01	$1,287,331.13	$1,682,545.33	$1,904,094.49	$2,187,968.89	$2,510,211.89	$10,653,959.74

Mr. BRADSHAW:: 1.	Are any houses being constructed at Stratford under Y.L.A.?
2.	If so, when will they be ready for occupancy ?
3.	Is work now proceeding on these houses?
4.	If not, are the houses now considered finished?
5.	If so, why are they not being put to use?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	With exception of very small amount of painting, houses are completed and can be allocated as soon as arrangements are made respecting water and sewage disposal. Matter is under negotiation with city of Stratford.
3.	Yes.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 2.


DISEASE IN NOVA SCOTIA BIRCH
Mr. WINTERS:: 1. Has the serious situation respecting the disease prevalent in Nova Scotia birch come to the attention of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply?
2. Has the federal government been requested by the Nova Scotia government to relax export restrictions on Nova Scotia birch, and, if so, when will action be taken?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. The dominion government was requested to relax the export controls on infested birch. This was refused because of the difficulty of differentiating between lumbei cut from infested trees and lumber cut from healthy ones and, also, the need of protecting Canadian consumers. Instead, a proposal was made to the government of Nova Scotia that if the cut of birch this year exceeded that of last year, 75 per cent of this excess could be exported. See also statements by the minister at page 2539 of Hansard for April 29, 1947.


PERMANENT FORCE BANDS
Mr. KIDD:: 1.	How many permanent force (silver or brass) bands are at present on the strength of the permanent forces, army, navy or air?
2.	Where are they now located and what is the present strength of each unit?
Questions


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Navy, 3; army, 3; air force, 3.
2.
Service-Location-Present Strength Navy-H.M.C.S. Naden, Esquimalt, 24; H.M.C.S. Stadacona Halifax, 11; H.M.C.S. Warrior, (Seagoing), 10.
Army-Shilo Camp, Manitoba, 23; Brock-ville, Ontario, 25; Quebec, P.Q., 23.
Air Force-Ottawa, Ontario, 39; Toronto, Ontario, 30; Edmonton, Alberta, 30.


NATIONAL INCOME AND GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What was the total national income of Canada for (a) 1930; (b) 1933; (c) 1936; (d) 1939; (e) 1942; (f) 1943; (g) 1944; (h) 1945; (i) 1946 and how is said total national income defined?
2.	What was the gross national product for each of the above years and how is said gross national product defined?
3.	How much was received by persons in Canada (a) as wages; (b) as salaries; (c) as interest, dividends, etc., in each of the above years and what was the total number of persons who received the amounts indicated in the answers to (a), (b) and (c) of this question?
4.	What is the estimated total national income and the estimated gross national product for 1947?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1. National income is defined by the dominion bureau of statistics as the earnings of Canadian residents in productive activities, including salaries and wages, military pay and allowances, investment income, and net income of agriculture and other individual enterprise. On the basis of methods now in use, estimates are as yet available only for 1938 and subsequent years. Estimates of years prior to 1938 are available on an older basis which was discontinued after 1944. The older estimates are not comparable with the present ones.
National income (millions of dollars)
Older basis now discon-
Basis now in tinued (not use by Dom- comparable inion Bureau with previous of Statistics column)
(a)	1930	not	available	$4,452(b)	1933	not	available	2,723(c)	1936	not	available	3,827(d)	1939	
$4,221	4,570(e)	1942	
8,277	8,044(f)	1943	
9,069	8,724(g)	1944	
9,685	9,186(h) 1945	
9,587	not available(i) 1946	
9,212	not available
2. Gross national product at market prices is defined as the value of all goods and services produced in a year by the labour, capital

and enterprise of Canadian residents measured by a consolidated account of all costs involved in their production. These costs include salaries and wages, military pay and allowances, investment income, and the net income of individual enterprise as well as indirect taxes less subsidies, and depreciation allowances. Purchases of goods and services by one business from another are not included in this compilation. Estimates of the gross national product are available only for 1938 and subsequent years.
(a)	1930
(b)	1933
(c)	1936
(d)	1939
(e)	1942
(f)	1943
(g)	1944
(h)	1945
(i)	1946
Gross national product (millions of dollars) . not available . not available . not available .	$ 5,495
.	10,296
.	11,124
.	11,771
.	11,478
.	11,129
3.	Salaries and wages received by persons in, Canada have not yet been estimated as separate totals but only in a combined total. Interest, dividends, etc., received by persons in Canada are called investment income but estimates of these amounts include also the profits of governmental and private corporations.
(c) Investment
(a)	and (b) income includ-salaries and ing interest, Wages dividends, etc. (millions of dollars)
(a)	1930	not available	not available(b)	1933	not available	not available(c)	1936	not-available	not	available(d)	1939	
2,540	782(e>
1942	
4,233	1,765(f)	1943	
4,790	1,809(g)	1944	
4,969	1,785(h)	1945	
4,865	1,916(i)	1946	
5,112	1,776
The total number of persons receiving salaries and wages in 1946 may be estimated as
follows:
November 17, 1945	 3,070,000
February 23, 1946	 3,073,000
June 1, 1946	 3,202,000
August 31, 1946	 3,323,000
November 9, 1946	 3,375,000
March 1, 1947	 3,277,000
These estimates are obtained by deducting from the total labour force the following groups: own account workers, employers, unpaid family workers and persons seeking

Questions
work who have never had a job. Unemployed wage earners, though not working on the dates given, were almost all working at one time or another in the course of the year.
Information prior to 1945 is only available for census years. The number of persons in receipt of interest, dividends, etc., have not been estimated for any date.
4.	Statistical information is not yet available for the estimation of total national income and gross national product in 1947. The Minister of Finance presented an advance estimate of gross national product for 1947 in the budget speech (Hansard, Tuesday, April 29, 1947, page 2545).


SUGAR-CONSUMPTION FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Of the total quantity of sugar consumed in Canada last year, what percentage was used (a) for household use; (b) by bakeries; (c) by soft drink manufacturers; (d) by jam and marmalade manufacturers; (e) for the production of wine; (f) for all other purposes?


Mr. MacKINNON:: Total quantity of
sugar consumed in 1945: lbs. 947,135,428.
per cent
(a)	household (See item (h))

(b)	bakeries	
4-8(c)	soft drinks	
6-0(d)	fruit and vegetable preparations	8-4(e)	wine	
0-9(f)	biscuits and confectionery	
10-5(g)	other manufacturing industries	6-3(h)	all other purposes (householduse, hotels, etc.)	
63 T


EGG FLATS AND FILLERS
Mr. BENTLEY:: 1.	Are egg flats and fillers manufactured anywhere in Canada?
2.	If so (a) where; (b) from what material?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Brantford, Ont., Trenton, Ont., St. Boniface, Man., Victoria, B.C.
(b)	Materials used:
Ground wood.
Paper board.


EXPORTS OF FEED GRAINS
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	What amount of malting barley has been exported to the United States of America or other countries since January 1, 1947, to date?
2.	What amounts of feed grains have been exported to the United States of America or other countries since January .1, 1947, to date?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Malting barley is not separately classified
in trade statistics. Exports of barley of all kinds during the period January 1 to April 30, 1947, were as follows:	To United States,
64,268 bushels; to other countries, 423,686 bushels.
2.	Feed grains are not separately classified in trade statistics. Exports of grains of all grades during the period January 1 to April 30, 1947, were as follows:
	To United	To Other
	States	Countries
	Bushels	Bushels
Corn 	
33,792	51,464Oats 	
984,228	5,059,485Rye 	
168,012	812,135Wheat 	
37,103	37,382,005


POST OFFICE SEALS
Mr. HENDERSON:: 1.	Did the post office department call for tenders for two million post office seals?
2.	If so, what was the name of the successful tenderer?
3.	What was the price per M paid for the seals?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mayer Sealing Devices Reg'd., Montreal.
3.	$2.60 per 1,000, sales tax included, f.o.b. Post Office Department, Ottawa.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY SHARES
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	How many ordinary shares of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were acquired by the Canadian government following world war I?
2.	How many ordinary shares of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are now in the possession of the Canadian government?
3.	Does the Canadian government hold any Canadian Pacific securities other than those referred to above? ,


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	20,000 shares.
2.	20,000 shares.
3.	No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Eric Bowness McKay: How many houses (a) have been constructed; (b) are under construction, in (i) Canada (ii) Saskatchewan, under terms of the National Housing Act?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Return tabled.
Inquiries oj the Ministry


MILK AND BUTTER SUBSIDIES
Mrs. STRUM:: 1.	What were the amounts paid out year by year from .1939 to >1947 to maintain the milk subsidy on (a) the producer subsidy; (b) the consumer subsidy on fluid milk; (c) milk being used for butter production?
2.	What were the amounts paid out year by year from 1939 to 1947 to maintain the butter subsidy?


TRANSPORT COMMISSION-EXPENSES OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	How much has been paid annually to each member of the transport commission since his appointment, for expenses?
2.	Are the members of the transport commission provided with a private car?


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What departments of the government arranged with the National Film Board for films during (a) 1946; (b) first four months of 1947?
2.	What films were ordered by each department?
3.	What was the total cost of taking, producing, etc., each of these films?
4.	Were any of these films produced by outside film companies?
5.	If so, by what firms and what was the cost of same?


James Joseph McCann: Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: For a copy of all orders in council, correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the departments of Mines and and Resources and Labour, relating to the entry into Canada of immigrants other than soldiers and their dependents from June 30, 1946, to date.


George Hugh Castleden: The department concerned has agreed to give the essential information in reply to another address. I would therefore ask that this motion be dropped.
Motion dropped.


CORRESPONDENCE WITH FRED ROSE
Mr. BENTLEY:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Fred Rose and the Department of Justice and/or the Minister of Justice since October 31, 1946?


Mr. ILSLEY:: May I ask that this stand until I find out whether there was any correspondence. I do not think there was.
Motion stands.
I Mr. Mcllraith.]



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister having to do with government legislation not yet introduced. From time to time members of the government have intimated that there is further legislation not yet introduced. My question is whether tomorrow or as soon as practicable the Prime Minister or someone on his behalf will give the house a statement with respect to legislation notice of which has not yet been given.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: I may say that my colleagues and I have been considering the remainder of the legislation for the session, and I hope to be able to give the house a full statement not later than Thursday of this week. There is a good deal of legislation still outstanding, and I purpose therefore today to have a notice placed in the Votes and Proceedings asking the house to consider giving up the hour devoted to public and private bills on Tuesday and Friday evenings, and to begin Wednesday evening sittings. I hope hon. members will give careful thought to what is involved. We are now only a few weeks away from the 1st of July. If the house is to get through with the work it has to do before we get well on into the summer, some of these changes will have to be made.


John Bracken: Did I understand the Prime Minister to suggest that he would ask us to sit Wednesday evenings as well?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not this Wednesday evening, but a week from Wednesday.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MATTHEW MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in the settlement of the strike now in progress amongst the coal miners of the maritimes.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: In reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) and also the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MAY 19, 1947
Inquiries oj the Ministry
Gillis), who I understand would want to ask a similar question had he been in the house, may I say that the proposed basis of settlement reached by the negotiating committee of the union and the company, which is subject to approval by the miners themselves, is as follows:
(a)	For continued operation of the mines until the end of the contract year, January 31, 1948;
(b)	An immediate wage rate increase of $1 per shift;
(c)	Cooperation by the union and the employees in every way possible to increase the tonnage production, equal at least to the pre-war rate of production by reducing absenteeism and increasing efficiency. In this connection, it is understood, of course, that to bring about this result there will have to be very close cooperation between the employer and the employees;
(d)	For a review of production at the end of a six months' period, at which time, if production has been increased to the stipulated level of the agreement, an additional forty cents per shift will be made to the employees;
(e)	For the settlement of other matters of a minor nature which were in dispute.
I sincerely hope that the miners themselves will vote in favour of acceptance of the terms of the settlement.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am out of place in thanking the minister on behalf of all Nova Scotia for his efforts in settling this dispute.



IMMIGRATION-WORKERS FOR QUEBEC TEXTILE INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour of which I have not given him notice. Has his attention been drawn to an article in Time under today's date dealing with the immigration into Canada of workers for the textile industry in Quebec? If so, is it correct that the wages to be paid are twenty cents per hour and that $6 per week is to be deducted for board, leaving these people $3.60 per week for everything else that they will need?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can take care only of my own jurisdiction. The enforcement of the minimum wage laws of the province of Quebec comes under the provincial government. When I replied to a question the other day I said that the prevailing rate of wages would be
paid. Frankly I do not know what are the prevailing rates in that area.


Major James William Coldwell: We should know that before admitting people into the country.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am trying to look after my own jurisdiction. My hon. friend is very jealous about the province from which he comes and I take it that the kind people in Quebec are in the same category with respect to the administration of the various laws of that province. The order in council laid down quite clearly that the prevailing rate of wages in the district to which these people go should be paid.



NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). In view of the financial crisis facing the Montreal neurological institute, and in view of the service being rendered by this institute, both to Canada and the entire world, particularly in the field of research, will the government say whether sympathetic consideration is being given to a federal grant to meet the situation outlined by Doctor Penfield on Friday last?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon. friend that the government considered this matter some little time ago and has considered it favourably. When the supplementary estimates are brought down, or at some other appropriate time, an announcement will be made as to the manner in which government assistance will be forthcoming.



OLYMPIC GAMES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: On Thursday last the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked two questions with regard to the Canadian Olympic association, which he agreed to have stand as notice. The first question was as to whether the people of Canada contribute to that committee. The answer is that while the major part of the revenues of the Canadian Olympic association are raised by voluntary contributions from individuals and com-
Inquiries oj the Ministry

panies in Canada, the provincial governments provide certain grants, and since 1920 the federal government has provided financial assistance to meet the expenditures for Canadian participation in the Olympic games every four years. The association has estimated that their total expenditure for the 1948 Olympic games will amount to $125,000, and the government has been asked to contribute $35,000 towards this amount. Of this contribution, $17,500 would be made payable in 1947 and a similar amount in 1948. The government will recommend in the supplementary estimates the payment of these amounts as requested.
The second question the hon. member asked was:
Does the government in any way recommend any of the appointments made in connection with it?
The short answer to this question is no. The Canadian Olympic association is a committee of the amateur athletic union of Canada, which is made up of representatives of the national bodies concerned with various branches of amateur sport. As such, the committee is a purely voluntary and non-official organization. The only connection which the federal government has with the Canadian Olympic association is indirectly through the national council of physical fitness. This council, which is appointed by the governor in council under the National Physical Fitness Act, is made up of one representative recommended by each provincial government and a representative named as chairman by the federal government. The national council of physical fitness was asked last year to send a representative to the meetings of the Canadian Olympic association, and Doctor W. C. Ross of Halifax was named for this purpose.


Mr. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: With reference to the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, will the government consider advising Barbara Ann Scott not to compete in the Olympics?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that I think there has been altogether too much said on this matter already. For Barbara Ann's sake and the sake of sport generally, I think it would be well if further discussion of the matter were dropped.
Mr. COLDW'ELL: This is not the proper place to deal with such matters.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: May I say that we still think in British Columbia that Barbara Ann should have everything that is coming to her.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if there is any further word with respect to the projected delegation of Newfoundlanders who were to come here to meet 'this government?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs)': Communications are being exchanged at the present time to select a date which would meet the mutual convenience of the representatives of Newfoundland and of those here who will have to participate in the conference. On Friday representations were sent to the high commissioner in St. John's, Newfoundland, asking him to put them before the Newfoundland representatives and to let us have their comment upon them.


Gordon Graydon: Will it be while parliament is sitting?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is one of the matters upon which their comment has been invited. The hope had been expressed that the meeting might be early in June. We have not been able to state at what time the session of parliament will be concluded. We are giving them the information we have about the dates that might be available and convenient, and we are asking them to let us know what their preference would be.



DOMINION ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
_ Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley): I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State, who I understand is in charge of elections in Canada. In view of the great interest displayed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard1 (Mr. Merritt) in the Halifax by-election, is the minister aware that the biggest and most enthusiastic convention in the history of the maritimes last Friday nominated J. H. Dickey, who will win the election?
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State):: I have not received a report of the convention.



IMPORT AND EXPORT CONTROLS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ALAN COCKERAM (York South):: I should like to direct a question either to the

Human Rights
Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. In view of a Reuters despatch from London, published in the Ottawa Journal of Friday last, to the effect that the purpose of the flying visit of Mr. Graham Towers to England was to discuss, first, a second loan from Canada; second, reimposition of certain Canadian wartime import and export controls in an effort to stabilize Canada's position should the world dollar crisis become more serious, is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance prepared to make a statement to the house at this time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon. friend that the Minister of Finance is unavoidably absent today but he will be in the house tomorrow and I know the minister has in mind answering that question at that time.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie that the house go into committee on a resolution for the appointment of a joint committee of both houses of parliament to consider the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to conclude the remarks I was making when the house adjourned on Friday evening, but before I do so may I in a sentence or two express my gratitude to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government for the announcement made this afternoon with respect to the Montreal neurological institute. I am sure that all those who know anything about the work of this institution, particularly its work in the field of research and what it means to human kind, will feel proud not only that Canada has such an institution within our boundaries but that the government is now prepared to render the financial assistance that has been announced this afternoon.
When I was speaking on Friday evening in the course of this debate I made clear my whole-hearted support of the contention that the time has come for getting down in black and white the freedoms and the liberties that we so cherish in this democracy. As part of my argument I recounted some of the threats to liberty which we have experienced in recent years and which now make it necessary
to set aside the negative precedents that we have had by a clear declaration of the rights of Canadians. As I concluded on Friday evening I suggested that, in addition to the obvious threats to our liberties, there are other threats perhaps not so obvious but, in my view, even more sinister.
I think, first of all, of the confusion of thought that exists with reference to this whole question of liberty and freedom. I regret to do so, but I am bound to say I felt that that confusion was exhibited by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) who introduced this motion. We all enjoyed the fine speech that he made, and we could not help but feel that he spoke with deep emotion and with a deep love for the concept of liberty and freedom. Yet somehow or another it is possible for that same minister not to realize the danger there is to freedom when we put upon our statute books a law that denies to certain Canadian citizens, merely because of their Japanese racial origin, rights enjoyed by others. That confusion exists in a number of ways in this country, and the tragedy is that it is found not amongst those who do not care about liberty but amongst those who claim to espouse its cause. We have, for example, people who say they want to preserve our democratic traditions and the heritage we have gained from the people across the seas, particularly in the United Kingdom, and yet they want to deny freedom of speech to people who may hold differing political ideas. We in this group have no use, for example, for the communist party in this county or for the things that they would try to do. But w'e want to make it quite clear that if you are going to stand for freedom of speech you have to stand for it in all cases. Certainly anyone who breaks the law should be treated accordingly. Certainly anyone who advocates the overthrow of democracy by force is going beyond the bounds of free speech, but within those bounds we suggest that to deny freedom of speech is to scuttle the whole principle for which democracy stands.
I am sure that most of us in this house were disturbed over the week-end by the reports that came from Toronto of. people there who felt that the great singer, Paul Robeson, should be denied the chance to speak in the midst of a concert that he was giving there on Saturday night. No matter how it is dressed up; no matter how one tries to say it was a concert and not a public address, the fact is that the news has gone around the world that an attempt has been made in Canada to deny Paul Robeson the

Human Rights
right to speak. That is a matter of shame for all of us, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that incidents like that make it doubly clear how necessary it is for us to establish this committee and also how necessary it is for the committee seriously to consider recommending a definite declaration of rights for our Canadian people.
Having made it as clear as I can that I support actively and aggressively without any reservation those who, like the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), press the necessity of maintaining and preserving our traditional freedoms, I want to go on and say that it seems to me that we must now move further. In my view, freedom today is threatened principally on a different front from what has been the case in the past. Freedom is threatened today by the tyranny of economic processes which doom hundreds of thousands, yes, millions of people to a lesser life than that to which they arc entitled. The great charters of freedom which we have had in the past and to which reference has so fittingly been made in the course of this debate all came out of precise situations. They expressed the desire of mankind at a particular stage in his development to win his freedom from a certain kind of oppression which was bearing down upon him at that particular time. Freedom is not an abstract, nebulous thing. Freedom to human beings means freedom from whatever tyranny would enslave man at that particular time. So it was with Magna Carta, so with the Bill or Rights, so with the declaration of independence, so with the declaration of rights of 1789 and so on. It is still true that we must guard against the tyranny of the state, as was the case with all those declarations. But it is also true that in our world today we have another kind of tyranny which is even worse than that which our grandfathers and those who came before us experienced. One of the beginnings of that realization was high-lighted in the enunciation of the four freedoms when it was declared that, in addition to freedom of speech and of religion and of assembly, we must also have freedom from fear and freedom from want.
I have used the illustration before, and perhaps I might be permitted to use it again, that our grandparents in this country twenty-five, fifty and seventy-five years ago lived economically at a level much below ours today. They struggled with the elements and with primitive means of agriculture and industry. In their day the main freedom they required was freedom from the interference of the state and freedom for Canada in terms of responsible government. We still need

those freedoms. But for us, and particularly for our children and our grandchildren, there is something else. Even if they have freedom from domination of the state, they will not really be free unless there is economic freedom, unless the people have an opportunity :o live in the kind of homes which make possible healthful and decent living standards, mless all children born in this country have in opportunity for equal education, and for all such education as they are capable of taking. People will not be free unless there is security aganist unemployment and against having their whole lives mortgaged by the expenses of hospital and doctor bills. In particular, they must have security in their old age.
Our grandfathers did not have to worry so much about economic forces. They were all together in the battle against nature, the battle against the conditions of that day, with the primitive means at their hand. But our children and our grandchildren are up against forces of an economic nature over which, as individuals, they have no control.
It is still true that the state must not dominate the individual; but it is not good enough just to say that the state must be pulled off. The State also has a responsibility to individuals to see to it that their freedom and their fundamental rights are not interfered with.
I know that this poses a real problem for our day, and for the generation which succeeds us. The problem is one of how to achieve security without losing one iota of freedom.
I have already admitted it will be a task. We shall have to carry forward the eternal vigilance which has always been the price of freedom. But the tragedy today, as I see it, is that so many people who espouse the cause of freedom take it for granted that it is a choice between freedom on the one hand and security on the other. This is portrayed before us in ideological terms. We have had it suggested that there is no other choice than one between the supposed freedom of western capitalism without security and the supposed security of soviet communism without freedom. But one of the most sinister threats to freedom today is the confusion of thought which takes that view and stops there. If we are to think this thing through we shall come to the place where we shall realize that neither is satisfactory, and that it is not a choice of either security or freedom; they go together or both will be lost.
I want to make my position perfectly clear, that if that choice had to be made I would choose freedom, and use that freedom to fight for security, rather than give up my freedom for the purpose of attaining security. But that

Human Rights
is not the choice. What we must move on to is that kind of society in which we maintain the freedom of the individual, not just by pulling the state off, but by using the state as an instrument of the people as a whole to protect the people against the economic forces, not only in a negative manner, but in a positive way, in the sense that it is the job of the state to provide for the economic advancement and improvement of the life of our people.
This is a tremendous task that is on our hands. What we are taking part in just now is not merely a series of speeches concerned about the preservation of the freedoms which have come down to us from the past. Yes, we can wax eloquent about them. But we have got more than that. We are breaking new ground in our day and generation. Let us look to the future and realize the tremendous opportunity that is ours to move on to the achievement of freedom with security. Ours is the chance to achieve something much greater than was ever dreamed of in 1215, or 1689, or 1776, or 1789; or through the 19th century. I submit that freedom with security provides a goal worth the eternal vigilance which is its price, a goal toward which our destiny impels us. We should be content with nothing less.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to express a word of appreciation to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) who introduced this resolution. I felt that he spoke with a great deal of eloquence and feeling, and also gave a most inspiring and instructive speech.
The resolution is most comprehensive in its scope. It is to consider the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the manner in which those obligations accepted by all members of the united nations may best be implemented. It is also to consider Canada's legal and constitutional situation with respect to such rights, and also what steps, if any, should be taken or recommended for the purpose of preserving in Canada respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I should like to commend the government for the scope of the resolution. Under its terms the committee will be in a position to consider what in this day and age may be taken as human rights and fundamental freedoms, and what can be done to have them more strongly established in Canada. So far as I am concerned, if anything can be done to make them safer and more secure in this country, I would feel the committee would be well justified in taking the necessary action.
One of the significant statements made by the minister which, I believe, is not sufficiently realized in Canada, is that the various enactments and bills of right, including Magna Carta, had actually only the force of acts of parliament; no more. Any subsequent parliament could repeal any of the rights laid down in any of those historic documents. Parliament at any time could have repealed any of the rights laid down in Magna Carta. There seems to be a lack of appreciation of that fact, and it seems to many as if there are some fundamental freedoms guaranteed to the British people which cannot be taken away from them by their parliament.
As any student of constitutional history knows, parliament in the United Kingdom has power to take away any rights whatever from a citizen of the United Kingdom, including even the right of life itself. Bills of attainder have been passed which did that very thing, namely deprived men of their lives and property. And, so far as the constitution of Great Britain is concerned today, there is nothing to prevent the passage of an act of that kind. So that parliament today in Great Britain still remains all-powerful, with a pow7er over life, liberty and property of the subject.
That principle has been more or less followed in Canada. Some people think that, because we have decisions based upon our constitution, and that because from time to time acts are declared ultra vires, we have a constitution like that of the United States. My understanding of our constitutional position is that, outside of the rights given in the British North America Act in regard to the use of two languages in parliament and otherwise, and in respect of the education of minorities, the whole effect of the British North America Act was to divide legislative jurisdiction betwreen the provincial and federal governments. The idea was to be that in their respective spheres of influence the parliament of Canada or the legislatures of the provinces were to be as all-powerful in their control over the citizens as the parliament of England is over its citizens.
The only qualifications I would make of that, to conform with the position today, would be these: first, we have not taken the right to amend our own constitution. In fact, in our own constitution, as laid down in the British North America Act and amendments, and as completed by the Statute of Westminster, it has been laid down that we have no right in this parliament to amend it. The constitution also provides that, so far as the provinces are concerned in the exercise of their jurisdiction, they are liable to have their
Human Rights

rights in regard to the passing of any law within their purview disallowed, so that such laws may be disallowed by the government of Canada as a whole. Outside of that, under the Statute of Westminster today, this parliament and our legislatures are supreme with respect to the right to legislate touching all these matters.	,
I understood that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), in discussing this matter, was satisfied that that state of affairs should continue, and that was about the only part of his main contention with which I myself did not agree. On page 3158 of Hansard, he said:
It might be argued that another government, another parliament, can revoke a bill of rights passed by parliament. True; but has not history shown that when laws are put upon the statute books, having the support of a vast majority of the people, they stay there?
That has been the tendency in the past, but I am not so sure that it is a sufficient guarantee today that, should we pass such an act of parliament, some parliament that succeeded us might not immediately cancel it. I have a feeling that we should go farther than that. Are there not rights so fundamental that they should not be interfered with by a majority in this parliament, which might not represent a majority in the country at all? We know there is the possibility of having a tremendous majority in support of a certain party for certain ideas in this parliament, which was elected by much less than a majority in the country. That is quite possible, and should all rights be subject to the will of a particular parliament, acting as it might be not in accordance with the will of the people, but only in accordance with a minority?
That very problem was faced by the people of the United States, and they decided that there were certain fundamental rights which inhered in the people themselves and that they should not be subject to be taken away from them by the members of congress- certain rights to liberty, the right not to be proceeded against by the government, certain rights such as we have in Magna Cart*. They felt that congress should not be able to take these rights away from the individual by a majority vote, but that these rights could be taken away only by a change in the constitution, which would require a demonstration that an overwhelming part of the people in the United States desired to have such rights interfered with.
This is provided for by requiring that there must be a two-thirds majority in congress and that three-quarters of the states in the United States must agree to any change 
of that kind before these rights can be interfered with. Many people say that our system has worked better than the system in the United States in protecting fundamental rights and human liberties. They say that too much faith can be put in written constitutions, that if people know that the parliament they elect can take away all their rights from them, they will be more careful about the kind of parliament they do elect, whereas if they feel that parliament cannot touch their rights they will be more careless in the sort of parliament they elect, knowing that it cannot entrench so far upon their rights.
Again, other people suggest that a constitution is of no value if the government becomes too powerful. They cite the constitution of the Soviet Union, which guarantees all these fundamental rights and freedoms, but which no individual citizen of the Soviet Union can enforce because the government has become all-powerful.
These are, of course, arguments which this committee will take into consideration. But what is going on in the world today in regard to this great question of the rights of the individual? I have mentioned the Soviet Union. No one will say that there are any real fundamental rights or freedoms that can be enjoyed under the control of the Soviet LTnion, and why is that so? It is because the government of the Soviet has become so powerful that, no matter what rules have been written into the constitution, they cannot be enforced against the government.
Throughout the world today there are those calling themselves communists who are working to have the same sort of system established everywhere. We know that the United States is worrying now about how to stop the spread of that system throughout the world.
There are others who advocate a system of complete socialism, who advocate the state owning and controlling all the means of production, all the means of distribution, whereby the state would be so powerful that the citizen in such a state would be very much in the same position as the citizens of Soviet Russia. The question, then, arises:	What powers
should you give to the state to act by a mere majority in parliament? If it is true that, should the state take control of all the means of livelihood, the people are all working for the all-powerful state and must look to the state for their living, and by that very fact they lose their real, essential freedom, the question we have to ask ourselves is this: Should these various rights to which I have referred, the right to property, the right not to have your business taken away from you,

Human Rights
the right not to have the state, as we find even in a province in Canada today, setting up an industry alongside you, free from taxation and subsidized by the state, whereby your own living is taken away from you- should these rights, I ask, be liable to be taken away from the people by a mere majority in parliament?
I grant that in a democratic state there is no question about it that what the majority want to do they will ultimately find a way of doing; but the question is whether that right should be given to a mere majority in parliament, which may not have the support of the majority of the people.
What are some of these rights which, I suggest, should not be subject to the will of a majority in parliament? I suggest the right to freedom from arrest as one of them. I suggest, freedom not to be dealt with in any way by the government except by due process of law. These rights should not be taken away by mere vote of parliament. I suggest, again, the right not to be arbitrarily detained; that should not be taken away by a mere vote of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or by the government.


Walter Adam Tucker: The government in Canada does not and has not taken it away unless parliament gives it or has given it the right. Let my hon. friend not pretend that that has ever happened in Canada. Anything the government has done in the last few years has been done by virtue of a vote of this parliament.


Mr. FULTON:: Kept secret for a long time though.


Walter Adam Tucker: The power was given the government by vote of parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But kept secret-


Walter Adam Tucker: Will my hon. friend please allow me to proceed. I shall come to that argument in due course. I suppose I might as well deal with it at once. I am not finding fault with what is done in days of crisis when the very safety of the state itself is involved. If people are ready to see the state decline to defend itself and would rather have it go down because it fears to have the government resort to means that are necessary for its defence, then by that very fact all liberties might be lost. I think much too much has been made about what has been done by the government pursuant to the powers given it by this parliament for the preservation of the country's safety in time of war and in time 83166-205
of crisis. I am not talking now about that. I am talking about ordinary peace time when there is no crisis.
Another right which I suggest must not be taken away is freedom from oppression by government. Do not let anyone think that does not happen in Canada today. I will give the case of a trapper named Wilson who had the exclusive right to trap over a leased area for ten years in Saskatchewan on payment of $25 a year. The government moved in and gave that right to somebody else. They gave other people the right to trap the muskrats off the leased premises.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH:	How many
muskrats?


Walter Adam Tucker: That has nothing to do with the matter. The point is that they entered in and trapped the muskrats off. This man then said to the government, "You have broken my lease from His Majesty the King", and he asked the right to go into the courts and prove his damage. But he was refused that right, and on top of that the government paper, the Saskatchewan News, issued at public expense in Saskatchewan, berated, abused and slandered him and those who took up his cause. These are facts that I am stating. Let no one say that no government whatever in Canada today has oppressed the citizens of the country.
Then what about the right to use public moneys to start a business next door and then say that government business shall not be subject to taxation, and thereby drive citizens who are taxpayers out of business? Is that not using the power of the state to oppress the citizen? That is happening in my province. Then what was done, for example, in regard to fire insurance? There are throughout Saskatchewan hundreds of insurance agents, some of them representing co-operative insurance companies, who have made it their lifelong business to engage in this work. The state there stepped in and said that any institution that took a grant from the government has to take its fire insurance business from the government. Then the government went around and appointed their political friends to handle that business. Is that not taking away the right of the citizen to make his living?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Louder, please.


Walter Adam Tucker: I know my hon. friends cannot answer that, and so they try to laugh it off. But that is not sufficient.
The right of freedom of speech is another right that should not be taken away by the

Human Rights

mere will of the majority that happens to be elected to this parliament. Then there is the right of opinion, the right to a free education, not the right to have your children sent to school and educated in ideas of a special group that are absolutely against the things that many people believe in. Education should be free and fair. It certainly should not be an attempt to inculcate socialism, as is being done in our province today, -and that cannot be denied. Surely there should be some protection against the rights of the people being taken away in regard to their children. There should be the right of freedom of movement from place to place in the country, the right of freedom to work and earn your living where, when and at what you please. Surely no man should have to go to another man in government or outside of it for permission to earn his daily bread for himself and his children. Surely that right should be protected, and surely an overriding and allpowerful government should not have the right to take it away from him. There should be the right of freedom of religion, and the right of freedom to join associations or not join associations, as people wish; and there should be the right of free assembly. Surely these are fundamental rights that should be given to every free Canadian citizen, and he should not be left in this position that, if perchance a majority that believe in the doctrines of socialism or communism, and are ready to wipe out some of these rights in order to make their view prevail, get into office and form a government, they can take those rights away by a majority vote only. A system of complete socialism or communism cannot be introduced in the United States without a change in the constitution of the United States, whereas in Great Britain a complete system of communism can be introduced by the will of the present parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: A complete system of socialism, I should have said. I do not know the difference; I have never had it explained to me. That is why I use the words interchangeably. Perhaps there is some difference.


Mr. GARDINER:: There is not any
difference.


Walter Adam Tucker: But a complete system of socialism can be introduced in Great Britain. It is doubtful if the will of the people is still behind that. Once it is done, it is very hard to undo it.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: What about the by-election?


Walter Adam Tucker: The mere fact that a government may win a by-election-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: They won there too.


Walter Adam Tucker: Just a minute. Does my hon. friend say that because he can go out and win a by-election, he has the right to take away from the citizens these fundamental freedoms?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Not a bit of it.


Walter Adam Tucker: If you say you have a right to take freedom, liberty and their property away from people because you win byelections; if you deprive a citizen of the right to earn his own living, have you not taken away one of these fundamental freedoms from him?
The question we must ask ourselves is this: which sort of system do we want in Canada? Do we want a system where these freedoms can be entrenched upon by the mere will of the majority in parliament or a system whereby it must be clear that the people are overwhelmingly in favour of it? That is one of the things that this committee will have to consider. I know some people will say, "Oh, the senate will protect us". Let nobody ever think that the senate will be able ever to protect anything in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Except themselves.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the people represented in this Commons chamber have a big majority desirous of doing something, they will pass a resolution as representing the sovereign people of Canada and they are going to present it to the parliament at Westminster. Is the parliament at Westminster going to listen to the will of the people of Canada as represented in this house or to the opposing will of the senate? With the way our constitution is today, with a really radical government in power, determined to impose complete socialism on this country, let nobody think there is any protection in the senate or any protection in the British North America Act either.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: That is ery comforting.


Walter Adam Tucker: I know it is comforting to ny hon. friends.


James Garfield Gardiner: Where are the Saskatchewan C.CE.'crs now?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Having a cup of tea.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where are the Saskatchewan Liberals?

Human Rights


Walter Adam Tucker: The Saskatchewan Liberals are going to be back here in good numbers, believe me. But if I may go on, I know my hon. friends who are here from Saskatchewan cannot answer my arguments. They can only try to laugh them off. That is a sure sign that they are unanswerable.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: Now if I may proceed, let us take, for example, the question of provincial rights. The way our constitution stands today, are we perhaps to expect the parliament at Westminster at some future time to refuse to do what this parliament or this House of Commons asks should be done? Suppose some province is against it. We shall be asking them to interfere in the internal affairs of the country which has stated over and over again that it is a nation and is entitled to run its own affairs. This committee will have to consider the position it is putting the United Kingdom parliament in, and whether that parliament is likely to refuse to do the will of the people of Canada in the only way it can judge it, as expressed in this house, the way our constitution stands today.
I was quite interested in my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) when he said one of the rights that he recognized-and I will just throw this out for the consideration of my colleagues in Saskatchewan-was the right of the farmer to own a farm, but what were the qualifying words? They were, "effectively cultivated by himself or his family". In other words, if you do not farm it right in the opinion of the government, or if you do not do it yourself, or if your family does not do it, it might be taken away from you, according to them.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: No, read the dictionary.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is what you said. You cannot deny it.


Mrs. STRUM:: What about social security legislation?


Walter Adam Tucker: I know it bothers you.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: What about the farm
security legislation that was recently disallowed?


Walter Adam Tucker: The farm security legislation has nothing to do with this debate. But if my hon. friend would read the British North America Act she would find that one 83166-205J
of the rights reserved to the dominion parliament exclusively, by section 91 of the act, is the right to legislate in regard to interest.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: But you have implied-


Walter Adam Tucker: I will read it from the act to my hon. friend. The reference in regard to interest is found in section 91 of the British North America Act, subsection 19:
. . . the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to . . . (19) interest.
Premier Douglas, speaking over the radio in my hearing, said that this act was an attempt to cut down interest. I have his speech right here. He, by his own words, said they were trying to do something that he knew in his own heart or should have known they had no power to do.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Go back to Saskatchewan and find out.


Walter Adam Tucker: I tell you it is just a fake issue. Every lawyer in Saskatchewan knew that act was ultra vires the province, but the C.C.F. government thought if they passed it and had it disallowed, they would have something to shout about. It is one of the biggest fake issues this country has ever seen, and it shows how empty the C.C.F. are in their programme when they have to resort to this sort of thing.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Why don't you go back to Saskatchewan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What would you do about farm security?


Walter Adam Tucker: I would protect the farmer in a more effective way than is being done by the present government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How?


Walter Adam Tucker: It is being done today by Liberal legislation. For one thing, there is the right of the individual moratorium. If a person is not getting a fair deal, he cannot be proceeded against by court action if the government forbids it. There is also the Limitation of Civil Rights Act. That is what the Liberals did, and that is the way people were protected during the hard times. What does the record show now? During an equal period of time, after the C.C.F. came into office, there were more foreclosures than in the same period immediately before the C.C.F. government took office. Yet they talk about protection for the farmer. However, let me proceed.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: They like it.


Walter Adam Tucker: I know you like it. You think it pays good political dividends, but it is mostly applesauce and fake.
Human Rights

Now, there has been, some suggestion about the repeal of the War Measures Act. I should say there would be no great advantage in repealing that legislation. The moment any emergency arose which required action under the War Measures Act, any government which wanted to protect the liberty and freedom of Canada would require such legislation, and presumably any parliament would re-enact it. If the government did not have the power to act it might not be able to take the necessary steps at a crucial time, such as the days that may lie ahead. So I doubt very much whether the War Measures Act should be repealed, because it does not affect the liberties of this country in any fundamental way.
However, there are a couple of matters on which I do feel strongly, and I am glad the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) is in the chamber to hear me speak on them. I should like to ask him to consider seriously taking away any right there may be to immunity on the part of the crown from being sued. I am told that today the right to sue the crown federally is granted automatically. If that is the case there is no reason to preserve that immunity, because it preserves to any government wishing to make use of it the right to prevent that action being taken. If it be said that it protects the government against vexa-ious actions, then I say the government does not need protection against vexatious action any more than individuals or corporations need it. Surely a government with all the power it has at its disposal can defend itself against vexatious actions just as members of this house or any other people can. So I suggest, with all the seriousness at my command, that we do away with this old right of the crown, at this very session of parliament. If the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan wishes to preserve that right for itself, let it do so, but I say no Liberal government should want to preserve the immunity of the crown beyond the present session of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, my time is almost up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does he know that the crown corporations act of Saskatchewan provides the right of suit against-


Walter Adam Tucker: I was not talking about the crown corporations act. If my hon. friend would leave it to his Saskatchewan colleagues to speak about these things it would be done more effectively; but I understand he is bound to talk about everything, so he throws himself into this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are too bored to bother.


Walter Adam Tucker: The Canadian National Railways has always been subject to suit, and quite properly.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the wheat board?


Walter Adam Tucker: I should like to see them all subject to being sued. At the recent session of the Saskatchewan legislature it was provided that crown corporations could be sued, but the right of immunity of the government from suit has been carefully preserved, as my hon. friend will find if he looks into the matter. So my argument holds, and in asking his question I suppose he has only succeeded in delaying my presentation of the remainder of my argument.
There is another matter, which has been brought up by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and on which I hope it will not be left to this committee to make any recommendation but that action will be taken at this session. That is the right of any subject whose liberty or fundamental freedoms are involved in any substantial degree in the opinion of a justice of the supreme court, to go to the Supreme Court of Canada with his case. He should have the right to go to that court and establish his fundamental freedom or liberty, whether or not any monetary consideration is involved. That is the court to which any Canadian should be able to go to vindicate his fundamental rights and freedoms, under the law, and I should like to see the Supreme Court Act amended in this respect without further delay.
Then the hon. member for Winnipeg North, with the well known attitude of the C.C.F. party, has suggested that they are the only ones who want to see the people enjoy the benefits and abundance of this modern age. The hon. member said something in regard to the freedom of western capitalism, without its security. I have heard many C.C.F.'ers suggest that we have no security in this country, no security under western capitalism, as they call it. I would say to him, based upon dozens of letters I have seen from people who have lived under socialism, that they are anxious to get out to this country, where he says there is no security. I say to him there is more real security in Canada for the individual and his family, more security in his home and in the right to earn a living, as well as in all the fundamental freedoms, than in any socialist country in the world today. Yet he suggests that under so-called western capitalism there is no security. When he says that he is absolutely going against the facts of the situation.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I don't suggest it; I say it.

Human Rights


Walter Adam Tucker: I say that we of the Liberal party have always put the benefit of the individual first. We believe in protecting him against monopoly, against undue power, whether it is in the hands of the-


An hon. MEMBER:: Why don't you do it?


Walter Adam Tucker: We are doing it better here than they are doing it in socialist Russia, which the hon. member admires so much. There you have real socialism, which interferes with the individual far more than he is interfered with by any system here. We say we believe in protecting the individual against all forms of monopoly, all forms of oppression-


An hon. MEMBER:: Why don't you do it?


Walter Adam Tucker: I say we are doing it far better than it is being done in any other country in the world, and my hon. friend cannot deny it. What 1 say is that the oppression an individual may suffer under a government where there is a complete system of socialism; where his job may depend upon his ability to please his political rulers, and so on, is worse than you will ever see under any system such as we have in Canada. When hon. gentlemen of the C.C.F. say, if we have to choose between these systems, of course we will choose our present system, they, in effect, say our present system is preferable. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) knows that what I say is true; he has already said, in effect, that our present system is better than socialism.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Rubbish.


Walter Adam Tucker: Nevertheless he reserves the right to go ahead and advocate socialism which brings about that very situation he does not want.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said it was better than soviet communism.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is the same thing in the result.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is bound to be the same thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You don't know what you are talking about.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, I have here your political bible, "Make this your Canada," written by your president and secretary and endorsed by your leader. Here I find the Regina manifesto, in which these words appear:
We believe that these evils can be removed only in a planned and socialized economy-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: -in which our natural resources-
Including land.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does it say that?


Walter Adam Tucker: Is not land a natural
resource? Do my hon. friends say land is not a natural resource? Let them get up and say so. Then it goes on:
-in which our natural resources and the principal means of production and distribution-
Our natural resources and the principal means of production and distribution.
-are owned, controlled and operated by the people.
Then the last words, the famous last words of this manifesto, are:
No C.C.F. government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full programme of socialized planning-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: -which will lead to the establishment in Canada of the cooperative commonwealth.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: I notice that some of my hon. friends from Saskatchewan cannot bring themselves to applaud that statement, and I congratulate them on their fundamental honesty. I noticed that; anyone on this side of the house could see it. I say to my good friends from Saskatchewan who did not applaud, the problem is that the real bosses of the party are the ones who believe in this, and when they get into power this is what will happen, whether my hon. friends like it or not.
If I may be allowed to proceed, Mr. Speaker, I have considered this question of a bill of rights, and I say that these fundamental rights and freedoms should be protected in any way we find it possible to make them safer and more soundly established. I should like to go farther and endorse this second bill of rights which was given to the American people by that great humanitarian, the late President Roosevelt in his message to congress. Here is a report of what he said:
President Roosevelt outlined in his message to the United States congress, today "a second bill of rights"'-economic rights. He listed these rights as including:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries, or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
Human Rights

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every business man, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
An hon. MEMBER; Hear, hear.
Mr. TUCKER; I say "Hear, hear" to that too. One unfair competitor is a government which pays no taxes and does business itself at the expense of the people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For the benefit of the people.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the people have to keep a horde of people working at a loss and put others out of business, I do not know how that would benefit them. This report continues:
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
I say that the Liberal party is just as devoted to the achievement of that second bill of rights as any other party in this country. We do say, and we have proved by our record, that we have been more successful in bringing those rights to the individual man and woman. By our record we have shown that we are devoted to the second bill of rights. But in seeking that second bill of rights we should not abandon or endanger the ancient and primary rights and fundamental freedoms of our people. If we come to value security or well-being more than freedom or liberty we shall end up by losing both. On that basis I would suggest that this committee of this house study this great problem which lies before us and I am sure that, in doing so, they will make a great contribution to the economic well-being and to the preservation of the liberties of free Canadians.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon, member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) has violated the spirit of this debate which was set so well by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) and maintained by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He was disappointed when we refused to take him seriously. I really cannot take seriously anyone who professes to lead a party and then will
fMr. Tucker.]
not go to the province. I do not want to take up any of my time answering charges which have no validity and which the hon. member himself knows are false.


Walter Adam Tucker: I know that the charges I made are true and the hon. member h.as no right to say that I know them to be false. She may be a lady member but she must be governed by the rules.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: It was an innuendo. The hon. member tried to put the legislation in regard to farm security in a false light. He knows, I know and every hon. member knows that what finally claims a farm is not the government; it is debt. The Liberal government did not take the farms from the farmers of Saskatchewan; it was the accumulated debt. The unpaid interest finally took those farms and caused the foreclosures. The hon. member for Rosthern knows that the proper thing to do is to pass legislation which will check the growth of interest in those areas when our farmers cannot meet their obligations. That was the spirit of the legislation; it was something that would guarantee to the farmer his equity so that he could not lose his farm. I should like to see the kind of argument the hon, member has put forth made on the floor of the legislature in Regina.


Walter Adam Tucker: It was made there and outside the legislature.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: the household all their take-home earnings; twenty contributed regularly one-half or more, but not all; forty contributed regularly less than one-half, and 6nly seven made no regular contribution toward family support.
Of every 100 women who lived with their families and planned to continue in the post-war labour market, 93 contributed regularly to family expenses. Nearly two-thirds (62 per cent) of the total money in the pay envelopes of all these women who contributed was allocated each pay day to household expenses. Of every 100 women who lived apart from their families, practically all were dependent on their own resources for self-support.
But even if women do not keep up separate households or support dependants the woman worker is supporting herself, and here we come to the question of married women being gainfully employed. Married women are being dismissed from every department of government. It is often contended that married women have no right to teach unless there is an emergency and other teachers are not available. It is commonly held that married women should be happy to live off the earnings of their husbands or of their brothers or fathers unless such earnings are very low. In that case she might conceivably supplement the family income by charring or doing some other unskilled job. Even married women do not object to this invasion of the field of employment by other married women. But do we hang out the "Stay Out" sign when men who have sufficient income from other sources enter the business or professional field? No; we say he is noble. His money has not spoiled him. He wants to work when he does not need to. He keeps his own selfrespect and that of his associates if he chooses to work. Of course this denial of the basic democratic freedom to work is an artificial restriction of employment based on fear, fear of less than full employment. It is because we are afraid there are not enough jobs that we say that certain people shall not be permitted to work.
There are other denials of freedom, because the moment that you deny equality of treatment you have invaded the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This denial of freedom through the denial of promotion is a common thing in almost every field of public endeavour. In spite of the fact that it is the women who keep the churches open, it is the women who go to church and carry on its work during the week and through their meetings raise thousands of dollars, while the men sit back when they feel like it-in spite of the fact that it is the women who, in the large majority, turn out and support and maintain the churches, how many women ministers of the gospel have we ever 
permitted to train or to function? We are just beginning to say to the women who maintain and foster and keep the churches alive that they might be permitted to preach. That is true of all other fields of activity. How many women professors have we? How many heads of colleges are women, although we have many highly trained women with very respectable degrees? But if there is a man in sight-any man, who can be chosen we choose him because he is a man, over the better qualified and more experienced woman simply because she is only a woman. And this is practised by a society that calls itself a democracy. I think we shall have to revamp our thinking and leave off practising this witchcraft in our social relationships.
I am going to give the house a little quotation from a clever article by Charlotte Whitton in a recent issue of Maclean's. She has put the case so well that I got her permission to quote this in relation to promotion and responsible positions held by women. She says:
You could count on your ears the number of women-other than in family firms-who sit on elective boards of directors, though in corporation after corporation many a chairman has a competent woman assistant where his brains are supposed to be.
This discrimination is reflected in average salaries among the 125,000 women in all avenues of trade, from messenger girl to manager. In Saint John, for instance, a woman clerk averages $14.58 a week, her male counterpart, $25.48; in Montreal a woman gets $17.63, a man $28.03 a week: in Ualgary the figures are $17.91 and $29.36.
Or swing to the 300,000 women and girls in major manufacturing. Their average earnings ran $532 a year in 1941 against their brothers' $1,075, and again this is not in the heavy industries. Even in textiles a man averages about $980 a year against a woman's $500.
Women slave at the very same machines at less return for their toil than men. In one town "sewing-machine operators, male," draw $1.20 an hour where "female" draw 78 cents; and seamstresses drop even lower if they shift to but slightly less onerous work.
In the rubber plants, men and women packers at the same stands-take one centre at random -rate 70 cents against 52 cents. Shoe workers in the same shop at the same bench (and with no difference as to whether a male or female is being shod) draw 44 to 64 cents an hour per man as against 30 to 41 cents for women. Males running about as bakers' helpers in biscuit plants will draw 49 cents against the woman's 40 cents for the same unit of work.
And why a man draws 50 to 77 cents an hour for stuffing sausages beside a woman who draws 40 to 53 cents, only the sausages can tell!


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: How extensive was that survey?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I shall let the hon. member have the magazine.

Human Rights
I have here a valuable contribution from the Itoyal Bank of Canada, which deals with women and their work. One is surprised these days to note the things banks put out. 1 quote from it, as follows:
Consequent upon their growing sense of their value and importance, women are urging that they should have equality with men in both opportunity and reward. A sub-commission on the status of women told the united nations economic and social council in May that equality with men in all fields of human enterprise- political, civil, educational, social and economic 

should be sought simultaneously. There is a growing conviction in democratic countries today that the only test in employing people on any work should be their efficiency.
I believe all hon. members will agree that only training, skill, efficiency and integrity should be the criteria in relation to employment. Here is another quotation from the same source:
A list of occupations open to women includes nearly the whole alphabet from accountancy to zoology. The United States Department of Labor has listed 1,050 industrial occupations out of '1,500 as suitable for women, and an additional 350 as "practically suitable." Much of the change in acceptability of women in industry is due to wise management, which is concentrating on fitting conditions of work to the needs of the workers, and is realizing more and more that deftness in execution may more than make up for lack of strength.
I believe all hon. members will agree with that; and as we apply engineering science to jobs we shall lessen the strain for the male workers, and thereby make it possible for women to do many jobs now beyond their strength.
There are hopeful signs that we are beginning to think and act like democrats. I would draw the attention of hon. members to a clipping I took from one of the Ottawa papers, dealing with the payment of teachers in Scarboro township. I was very happy to read this, and I should like to place it before hon. members:
Women teachers in school area 'No. 1 of Scar-boro township will get the same salaries as men teachers, the school board for that area decided last night. The board granted wage increases totalling $60,000 a year.
The minimum salaries of $1,200 for female teachers and $1,400 for male teachers will be replaced with a minimum of $1,500 for all. Maximum salaries of $2,200 for ladies and $2,400 for men will be replaced by a new maximum of $3,600.
Principals, who now earn from $2,280 to $2,800 will in future get from $2,500 to $3,600.
I should like to meet the members of that school board because, by removing this discrimination in respect of people who have the qualifications and the ability to teach, in their own little bailiwick they are beginning to carry out the provisions of the Atlantic charter.
They are refusing to practise this denial of freedom in their relations with their fellow men.
There is another feature I should like to point out, and that is our new citizenship bill, which takes another step when it removes discrimination in connection with citizenship. Last year we established, for the first time, the right of a woman to decide whether or not she will change her citizenship at the time of her marriage. Before that, it was out of her hands. Of course we had an amendment which said that within six months a woman might declare her citizenship, and if she took steps to retain it she would not lose it. But very few girls knew that existed, or realized the importance of it, and therefore lost their citizenship. I was happy when we took that step last year, by guaranteeing to all human beings in Canada the right to decide what their citizenship would be.
Only recently in our immigration branch there has been introduced another order in council which gives to girls the same right now enjoyed by boys, of allowing them to bring their fiances to this country, and to marry and take out citizenship papers.
This was not true until just recently. Since airing my case on the floor of the House of Commons a few days ago, I have been informed by the minister that this decision now applies to girls as well as to boys, and I wish to thank and to congratulate the minister upon having taken this step.
I was happy at the last session to note that at least one minister, who was then Minister of National Health and Welfare, and who is now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), recognized the ability and skill of the women assistants in his department. He was the only minister who brought one of his women assistants to the floor of the house, thereby' recognizing her value to the department, and I congratulate him upon his having done so.
All hon. members know that in all government departments there are highly trained women of long experience who, if the ministers -happened to be away, could run those departments. These women hold positions of great responsibility, and their services are of great value to the minister. It is time we recognized them and gave them the promotion and the pay their services merit, without discrimination as to sex. I hope that in our relations with each other we shall refuse to violate the spirit of the Atlantic charter, by recognizing basic human rights and fundamental rights of human beings everywhere. Let us start now, in Canada.

Human Rights


Mr. JEAN LESAGE ((Montmagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, the high level at which this debate has been carried on, coupled with the considerable interest it has aroused in the house and in the minds of the public, are proof of its paramount importance. Important it is and even necessary that from time to time representatives of the people suspend their studies of practical matters and legislation so as to give examination to high principles of political and social philosophy, and their application to our legislation.
In the complexity of modern times, too often we are inclined to forget that such principles are the background of laws.
The purpose of the motion presented by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), in one of the most eloquent speeches heard in this house, is the appointment of a joint committee of both houses to consider the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms. If the only effect of the motion were to permit the present discussion, I think there would be unanimous agreement that it has already served a useful purpose. The order of reference to the committee to be appointed is to consider what steps if any should be taken for the purpose of preserving in Canada respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms and also the manner in which obligations arising out of such rights and freedoms, accepted by all members of the united nations, should best be implemented in the world at large.
The adoption of a bill of rights for Canada as proposed by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), in a well documented speech, involves a number of difficulties which, at the moment at least, would appear to be insurmountable. These difficulties have been outlined by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard). I do not intend to repeat what they have already said so accurately. May I simply set out some of the objections.
First, matters pertaining to property and civil rights fall expressly and exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. Second, in practice, under a constitution such as ours, it is utterly impossible to lay down laws in irrevocable statutes which would bind for the future parliament and the provincial legislatures. They are each within its own sphere the supreme authority through which the will of the people can be expressed at all times. Unless a bill of rights is part of our constitution, it is impractical, according to the opinion of the hon. member for Chambly-

Rouville, with whom I am in thorough agreement. I quote him at page 3173 of Hansard:
There are things that a country must first do if it wishes to define the inalienable and sacred rights of its citizens. Among these things, there is the inevitable obligation to adopt, before everything else, its own constitution.
And further:
In any event, one thing appears to be undeniable. There cannot, or at least there should not, be a bill of rights or a declaration of that kind enacted by a nation unless there already exists a constitution adopted by that nation, or unless one is formed simultaneously with such declaration.
Another strong objection to the incorporation of a bill of rights in our laws as a statute is, to use the expression of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the danger of putting freedom in a strait-jacket by seeking to define it in words. Any law, any statute is, by its very essence, a hindrance to liberty. You cannot, through a law or a statute, hammer the fundamental principles of human rights and freedom into the minds, hearts and conscience of the people.
Laws cannot instil principles; they are inspired by them. Our laws will preserve and ensure the respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms to the extent and only to the extent to which those who write the laws are convinced of the necessity of the preservation of those rights and freedoms. No element, no faction, no group in Canada seriously and vocally challenges the principles of democracy; and, at least ostensibly, they respect human rights and fundamental freedoms but let us not forget that eternal vigilance is the [DOT]price of liberty.
What is true for Canada is not true for the world at large. Even after six years of a terrible and devastating struggle for freedom, which ended in complete victory for the armed forces of democracy, we who do not suffer, at least to the extent mentioned by the members for Lake Centre and Winnipeg North, have to realize that three-quarters of the world is enslaved by communist totalitarian doctrine and practice, and by absolutism. In the liberated countries of Europe, two years after the end of the conflict, people do not enjoy the liberties that we, here, consider as commonplace.
Communism, which, by the very essence of its doctrine, denies human rights and fundamental freedoms, constitutes the greatest danger that we have to face, not only in the world at large, but in North America and in Canada itself. We have to fight in our own country the danger of a subtly organized com-

Human Rights
munism boring into our labour unions. There is a struggle to be fought. In its fundamental aspect, it is basically one between those whose conception of society is materialist and whose malignant and cynical opportunism reflects their creed, and those who believe that peace, prosperity and happiness can be achieved only in conditions of freedom, law, and faith in God. Laws may, to a certain extent, prevent the expansion of communism, but the best way to stop it in our country and the only way to fight it in the world is to spread our own doctrine of democracy. Canadians must take part in a crusade to convince the people of the world that they cannot find security and happiness except in the application of the principles of Christianity and democracy.
I said "Christianity and democracy," because democracy, as I see it, is a political expression of Christianity. In their struggle for the survival of their faith, the persecuted Christians of ancient Rome preached the doctrine of the dignity of each human soul, the doctrine that God intended man to be a good neighbour to his fellowman and the doctrine of the essential unity of the entire world. The first principle of our democratic Christian philosophy asserts that all men are brothers and that God is their father. The fundamental truth that all rights and freedoms derive from God was recalled on Friday last by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville in a speech of irrefutable logic, supported by a constant rising trend of ideas. As I read Hansard, I felt that, between the lines, there was the sound philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, philosophy immovable through the centuries since mediaeval ages, which is the Christian foundation of our democratic principles. And I could not but think that, whatever may be the criticism against them, our classical colleges of the province of Quebec are second to none in the philosophic formation of true Christian democrats.
There is no doubt that the uneasiness in international relations today is primarily due to the supremacy ascribed to materialism over spirituality. Materialism has brought about regimes based on brutality, the abuse of force and complete disregard for spiritual values. We shall not enjoy fundamental freedoms and human rights unless we turn our minds and souls toward those spiritual values; we shall not win our struggle against communism unless we convince the peoples of the world that only in the application of the principles of Christianity and democracy will they find security and happiness.
83166-206J


Mr. BURTON:: Let us do it by deeds and not just by words.


Jean Lesage: That is exactly what the Liberal government intends to do, because Liberal principles are founded upon and are similar to true, sound, democratic principles; whereas socialism has never been based upon democratic principles.
It is useless to embark on a crusade for freedom if we are not ourselves convinced and imbued with our doctrine, and if we are not ready to give to it the shining glory and the dynamic force which bring about universal adhesion. Louis Marlio expressed the idea in these words:
(Translation):
Victory has cost us dearly, but it will have settled nothing and will serve merely as a preparation for another world conflict in the next generation, should democracy fail to achieve a victory which is much harder to win and much more essential, the victory over itself.
Democracy must regain the necessary dynamism in a world subjected to a complete technical evolution; it must adapt its institutions to the economic revolution we are witnessing and it must seek, by a more extensive application of the life-giving principle of brotherhood, a solution to the conflicts which are developing with a growing acuteness in the economic, social and international fields.
(Text) :
The victory of our principles in the present situation when the world is divided into two camps depends in a large measure upon the dynamism of our democracy. The essential truth of democracy must capture the hearts of men all over the world if human civilization is not to be destroyed in wars and revolutions far more terrible than anything that has yet been endured. Canada, as a first contribution to the crusade for democracy, could offer our democratic principles for the drafting of an international declaration of human rights and fundamental freedoms which could be accepted by the nations of the world as a guidance in their domestic legislation and international relations.
Recently, in April of this year, a group of individuals representing liberal thought in nineteen nations, alarmed by the danger of communist oppression, have decided to come together for the purpose of "winning general acceptance of democratic principles and to foster a free society based on freedom and personal responsibility, and to provide means of collaboration between men and women of all countries who agree with these principles."
At a meeting held at Oxford of what was called the Liberal world union or the Liberal international as opposed to the red international, these opponents of socialist fascist and communist parties, desiring to express in
Human Rights

words democratic and liberal ideals, adopted a manifesto containing the following principles:
(I)
1.	Man is first and foremost a being endowed with the power of independent thought and action, and with the ability to distinguish right from wrong.
2.	Respect for the human person and for the family is the true basis of society.
3.	The state is only the instrument of the community: it should assume no power which conflicts with the fundamental rights of the citizens and with the conditions essential for a responsible and creative life, namely:
Personal freedom, guaranteed by the independence of the administration of law and justice.
Freedom of worship and liberty of conscience.
Freedom of speech and of the press.
Freedom to associate or not to associate.
Free choice of occupation.
The opportunity of a full and varied education, according to ability and irrespective of birth or means.
The right to private ownership of property and the right to embark on individual enterprise.
Consumer's free choice and the opportunity to reap the full of the productivity of the soil and the industry of man.
Security from the hazards of sickness, unemployment, disability and old age.
Equality of rights between men and women.
4.	These rights and conditions can be secured only by true democracy. True democracy is inseparable from political liberty and is based on the conscious, free and enlightened consent of the majority, expressed through free and secret ballot, with due respect so the liberties and opinions of minorities.
(II)
1.	The suppression of economic freedom must lead to disappearance of political freedom. We oppose such suppression, whether brought about by state ownership or control or by private monopolies, cartels and trusts.
We admit state ownership only for those undertakings which are beyond the scope of private enterprise < ( in which competition no longer plays its part.
2.	The welfare of the community must prevail and must be safeguarded from the abuse of power by sectional interests.
3.	A continuous betterment of the conditions of employment, and of the housing and environment of the workers is essential. The rights, duties and interests of labour and capital are complementary; organized consultation and collaboration between employers and employed is vital to the well-being of industry.
(HI)
Service is the necessary complement of freedom and every right involves a corresponding duty. If free institutions are to work effectively, every citizen must have a sense of moral responsibility towards his fellow men and take an active part in the affairs of the community.
(IV)
War can be abolished and world peace and economic prosperity restored only if all nations fulfil the following conditions:
(a)	Loyal adherence to a world organization of all nations, great and small, under the same law and equity, and with power to enforce the strict observance of all international obligations freely entered into.

(b)	Respect for the right of every nation to enjoy the essential human liberties.
(c)	Respect for the language, faith, laws and customs of national minorities.
(d)	The free exchange of ideas, news, goods and services between nations, as well as freedom of travel within and between all countries, unhampered by censorship, protective trade barriers and exchange regulations.
(e)	The development of backward areas of the world with the collaboration of their inhabitants in their true interests and in the interests of the world at large.
Mr. Speaker, there is very little in the declaration I just read with which the true democrats of the Canadian parliament would not agree, except for the fact that it does not mention God as the source of all rights and freedoms. I suggest, however, that the declaration be studied by the committee and I submit respectfully that it would at least form a sound basis for discussion in the committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is nearly six o'clock, but perhaps I might say a few words before that hour is reached. During this debate we have listened to a number of very good speeches indeed; some of them were quite eloquent. My purpose in intervening is to try to consider what practical steps the committee should take and what attitude the House of Commons should assume with regard to the proposals set forth in the resolution. I shall not read the resolution which is before the house, but I gather from it that the main purpose of the inquiry which is to be conducted by the committee is to consider the manner in which our obligations to the united nations may best be implemented. As part of this inquiry the committee will have to consider the legal and constitutional situation in Canada with respect to human rights.
In the third place, the committee is to consider what steps, if any, it would be advisable to take or to recommend for the purpose of preserving in Canada respect for and observation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Some of the speeches that have been made during the debate seem to have proceeded on the assumption that the emphasis I have given to the respective objects of the committee is misplaced, and that the main purpose of the committee is to decide whether or not Canada should have a bill of rights and, if so, what should be in it. My own conception of the main purpose of the committee, as I Stated at the beginning, is that it is to consider the manner in which our obligations to the united nations may be best implemented. But as the formulation of a bill of rights undoubtedly is within the scope of the terms of reference, I think it will be necessary for me to consider what is involved

Human Rights
in that proposal, whether it would be possible to carry it out, and what steps the committee should take in regard to it. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has argued last session and this session in favour of a bill of rights for the dominion of Canada. If you will be good enough to call it six o'clock now, Mr. Speaker, later I want to examine some of the proposals of the hon. member.
A't six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was dealing with the terms of reference applicable to the proposed committee. Certain of the speakers in the debate this afternoon made some interesting points. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) in particular pointed out a fact that we should not lose sight of, that under the British constitution the principle of the supremacy of parliament is the important principle, that parliament may make any laws it wishes, may confer rights, may alter rights or may even deprive individuals of rights by its act. He pointed out also that that principle has been extended to the British dominions and that in the Dominion of Canada this parliament is supreme within the sphere of its jurisdiction and the provinces are supreme within the spheres of their jurisdictions.
That being true, the adoption of the other system, the system of constitutional limitations upon the powers of parliament, would be a radical departure from the principles which have heretofore applied. It would be an introduction into our system of a feature of the American institution; it might possibly be called an Americanization of our constitution. When I say that I am not prejudging the case or the issue as to whether it would be desirable, because that is a matter within the sphere of the terms of the reference which the committee, if it thinks fit to take up this question of a bill of rights, will be free to decide.
I was approaching the point in my remarks where I felt it would be necessary to consider carefully just what is meant by the adoption of a bill of rights for the Dominion of Canada. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) favours the adoption of a constitutional amendment or merely the enactment of a dominion statute. On page 3152 of Hansard, of May 16, I find this passage from his speech:
It was for that reason that I suggested, and now suggest, that, when this committee is set
up, representatives from the various provinces be convened here, so that by joint action a comprehensive bill of rights may be evolved either by way of constitutional amendment or by statute.
I should like to consider for a few moments just what the case would be as respects the dominion and the provinces and the relations between the dominion and the provinces if the first alternative were adopted, that is, the enactment of a constitutional amendment. The only way in which our constitution may be amended is by an amendment to the British North America Act. As all members of this house know, under the British North America Act property and civil rights are within the jurisdiction of the provinces. The first observation I should like to make is that if our constitution is amended by the enactment of sections comparable with those in the American constitution severe limits would be placed upon the field of jurisdiction now delegated to the provinces. I think it is well that the house should realize that and should understand it thoroughly.
The theme has been laboured, particularly within the last few months in this house, that the dominion should not invade the jurisdiction of the provinces. If the constitution is amended in this way it would mean that the right of the provinces to legislate as they think fit in the field of civil rights would be limited and curtailed. The principle of provincial legislature supremacy in the field of civil rights would no longer exist. It may be that my hon. friend favours the other alternative, that of a dominion statute. When I turn to page 3158 of Hansard I find this passage from his speech:
Individual civil liberties, those that we have inherited today, guard the weak against the strong. What is needed are civil liberties by declaration of parliament which will guard the individual against the state. It might be argued that another government, another parliament, can revoke a bill of rights passed by parliament. True; but has not history shown that when laws are put upon the statute books, having the support of a vast majority of the people, they stay there?
A declaration of a bill of rights in the country would be a positive declaration on the part of men and women of all political faiths in their belief in civil liberties. Whether the federal authority has the power or not to pass legislation respecting civil liberties, its passage would strengthen the hand of the Minister of Justice in the matter of the disallowance of any statute which would deny freedom anywhere in our country.
In other words, it is suggested that it might be desirable to pass a dominion statute, whether or not we have jurisdiction to pass that statute, affecting as it would civil rights, and then use the statute as a basis for the disallowance of provincial statutes which
Human Rights

might be passed from time to time in conflict with the dominion statute. There, again, I think the house should understand the implications of that proposal. The practice of the disallowance of provincial statutes, while r.ot wholly uniform and perhaps not entire!}' settled, is more or less so and, generally speaking, the dominion authorities respect the rights of the provinces to legislate within their constitutional field.
It is a somewhat serious proposal that the dominion government should pass an act somewhat regardless of whether it has the power to pass it, affecting as it would civil rights, and then use that act, whether constitutional or unconstitutional, as the basis for the disallowance of acts passed by the legislatures of the respective provinces. I want to say again that I am not prejudging the case; I am a member of the committee, and I do not intend to take a position in this matter in this house in advance of the discussion in the committee. But I do want to point out to this House of Commons the seriousness of these proposals and their radical nature.
The hon. member for Lake Centre then dealt with a miscellaneous assortment of proposals with respect to specific statutes. These proposals were not necessarily tied up to his bill of rights proposals, but I should like to say a few words with regard to those and the amendment or repeal of individual statutes. The hon. member for Rosthern mentioned two of those proposals this afternoon. One was that fiats be abolished, that so far as the dominion government is concerned, and that is as far as we can go, we should do away with the necessity of obtaining a fiat.
This matter arose in this house a few weeks ago and I stated that, so far as I was concerned, I had an open, mind on that proposal. I will go farther and say, not only on my own, behalf but on behalf of the government, that we have no objection to that proposal. When I say that I want to say that, so far as we are concerned,, the proposal has little or no practical importance, because I have made inquiries and find that during the last twenty years never has a fiat been denied except in an admittedly frivolous case, and I do not know whether there have been many or even any of those. Persons who desire to bring actions against His Majesty the King in the right of Canada are granted fiats automatically unless, as I say, the action is of a patently frivolous nature. So from a practical point of view it does not matter whether we abolish or continue fiats in the. dominion field. I see no objection, whatever to abolishing fiats and, if the committee and the house wish to do it-I
would not want to get the matter into controversy because the issue is not one of practical importance-the government would have no objection to introducing the necessary legislation, but I would hope that we would not be asked to do it until next year because of the lack of practical importance of the issue involved.
The other matter mentioned by the hon. member for Rosthern this afternoon and also by the hon. member for Lake Centre was an extension of the appellate powers of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is a question which requires study. If and when appeals to ^he judicial committee of the privy council from the Dominion of Canada are abolished the whole question of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada will have to be carefully reviewed. At the present time except in criminal cases Canadians have the right to apply to the judicial committee of the privy council for leave to appeal in all cases. They do not have the same rights in the Supreme Court of Canada, and it may be necessary, it may be desirable, to extend the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court and to make the necessary amendments to the Supreme Court Act. That is a matter which could properly be studied by the committee if the committee considers that it is of importance commensurate with that of the other subjects of great importance which it will have to consider.
Another act which the hon. member for Lake Centre mentioned as being one which perhaps ought to be amended or revamped, I think was the word he used, is the Public Inquiries Act. The point about the Public Inquiries Act is just this, that witnesses are not as such entitled to counsel in proceedings before a royal commission. The relevant sections of the Public Inquiries Act are these:
12.	The commissioners may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this act, and shall allow any person against whom any charge is made in the course of such investigation, to be represented by counsel.
13.	No report shall be made against any person until reasonable notice shall have been given to him of the charge of misconduct alleged against him and he shall have been allowed full opportunity to be heard in person or by counsel.
Under these sections a witness before a royal commission is entitled to counsel if a charge is made against him in the course of the investigation, and he is entitled to counsel and to reasonable notice before any report is made against him so that he may attend with counsel. These provisions were at the time the act was passed, I think in 1912, regarded as adequate. The point which has been raised recently, as a result probably of the espionage

Fluman Rights
inquiry, is not a new one. The point was fully discussed in the debates of the day in 1912 or 1913, and it will be found that Sir Robert Borden, after an open-minded discussion of the issues involved, advised the house that, in his opinion, these safeguards were adequate. It may be argued that they should be extended; it may be argued that they are sufficient. If the matter comes before the committee that is set up, the debates of that day and much other material available on the subject will be of great value to the committee. But that again is a matter pertaining to the amendment of a specific act of parliament rather than a part of a bill of rights.
Another act that was mentioned was the Official Secrets Act. It is suggested that the Official Secrets Act is too hard on the accused, that certain presumptions of guilt should be removed from the Official Secrets Act. If that position is put forward in the committee I think anyone who puts it forward will find some pretty strong reasons for the present provisions of the Official Secrets Act. The presumption of innocence is, it is true, an old and highly prized right. It has been found necessary, however, in much provincial legislation and in some of our dominion legislation to reverse or remove this presumption in particular circumstances. Nearly every session there comes before the house legislation which precipitates a debate as to where the onus should lie. The only point I am making is that no general or universal rule can be laid down. I do not know that anybody would advocate that all the presumptions of guilt in the Official Secrets Act be reversed. The presumption was reversed in the Official Secrets Act of Great Britain, and it has been in our own. It would be prejudging the case to say that our present act is perfect, but it is also prejudging the case to say that it should be changed because the presumptions are reversed in certain circumstances.
There are in this world a great many highly ntelligent persons who have made a careful study of our British system of law and procedure with certain objects in mind. Those objects are to take full advantage of the rules, so that they can carry on espionage within Canada with impunity. Persons who are real offenders against the Official Secrets Act are persons who are selling out and betraying their country. Spies are not likely to leave much evidence behind them, either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Their methods are developed so as to capitalize, to the full, presumptions of innocence, necessity of proof beyond reasonable doubt, necessity of corroboration and all the other rules which
have been worked out through the centuries as safeguards of liberties by courts and legislators who had in mind crimes very different from the kind of crimes that spies commit. Consequently the provisions to which my hon. friend objects were enacted for the protection of the state and of the liberties which the existence of a democratic state provides. It may be that some changes in this legislation are desirable; but if the question is raised in the committee the committee will have to decide how far we dare tamper with legislation which has been forced upon us by pressure of modern espionage methods.
Then, I come to the War Measures Act. While I have stated carefully that I do not wish to prejudge any of the proposals which have been put forward, it is almost impossible for me not to prejudge that one. The proposal is that the War Measures Act be repealed. The wording used by my hon. friend is this:
I have a few suggestions to make. The first one is that this committee should consider the advisability of the repeal of the War Measures Act, which has been on the statute books since 1914. In between the first and the second wars, on several occasions in the House of Commons a declaration was made that it was no longer in effect. That act, standing as it does, constitutes an invitation to any government in the future under the emergency theory to declare an emergency to the detriment of the rights of our people.
Then there followed some questions and interjections, following which the hon. member for Lake Centre said:
My right hon. friend says it was a very necessary act. It was necessary in the period of the war; but in the days of peace, with the challenge that the state is making to the rights of the individual, Professor Lower supports the stand that I take, namely, that the act should be repealed.
I should like the house to understand the seriousness of that suggestion, namely, that the War Measures Act be repealed. The War Measures Act was passed in 1914, and has remained on the statute books ever since. It remains dormant unless there is a war, insurrection or apprehended war. It is admitted by the hon. member-and, I think, by everybody else in Canada without exception-that the War Measures Act is necessary in time of war.
The proposal seems to be that we wait until there is a war before we pass it, that we repeal it now and then wait until there is a war before we put it on the statute books again. I do not know how that proposal appeared to hon. members, but in a country the size of Canada and with the possibility that if we got into a war again that war
Human Rights

would burst upon us with great suddenness, would we not be taking an entirely unwarranted gamble in the time factor if we were to take the War Measures Act off the statute books of this country?
An American general, I believe it was Major-General Russell P. Groves, said not so long ago that the first few hours of surprise assault in another war might cost the lives of forty million Americans. I do not know whether that is so or not. But it is because I do not know, and because none of us knows, it would be extremely serious to make it necessary for parliament to be called together before the necessary legislation could be enacted for the carrying on of a war.
And then, think of all the things which have to be done when the war clouds are gathering. Before the last war, the defence of Canada regulations were in course of preparation for at least six months before the war came, because during the summer of 1939 it looked as if war were coming. Those regulations could not have been prepared, except under an act, and that act was on the statute books of Canada.
The same is true of regulations respecting foreign exchange control, respecting trading with the enemy, respecting dependents' allowances and various other regulations which were prepared in advance, so that, if war did come, we would not be caught napping. And they all had to be prepared under the War Measures Act. If those persons who were working on those regulations did not know what kind of act they would have, or whether they would have any act at all, or what the provisions of the act would be, how could they possibly place themselves in a state of readiness for any conflict which might possibly come?
It might be said that if it looked as if war were looming up we could put the act on the statute books. But I think if hon. members will consider the proposal they will see some pretty serious objections to it. If Canada were to enact a War Measures Act in anticipation of a war, it might be extremely prejudicial to our international relations. In effect, it would be a declaration that we were expecting a war. It would be interpreted, probably, as a declaration that we wanted a war. The economic effects; the effects on markets and on the prices of commodities and on government financing would have to be taken into consideration, if an act were passed such as the War Measures Act in anticipation of a war, when there was still a hope that such a war might be avoided.
[Mr. Ilsley.l
That act was passed in 1914, and it was left on the statute books of this country between the wars. Now some well-meaning professors come along and write treatises say^ ing that we should repeal it. And the hon. member for Lake Centre identifies himself with that proposal. As I said before, I do not want to prejudge anything which may take place in committee; but it is pretty hard not to prejudge such a proposal as that.
I now come to another matter which has been discussed at length in the press, and which my hon. friend discussed at some length in his speech. I refer to the espionage inquiry. My hon. friend says in that connection:
I come down to a more recent example, and that is in connection with the espionage commission set up under order in council passed on October 6, 1945.
May I interject at this point that the commission was not set up under the order in council of October 6, 1945. It was set up in February, 1946, but the order authorizing the detention and interrogation of those who were believed to have the information about espionage was passed on October 6, 1945. Then the hon. member continues:
No one today would say that there was not in that order in council a cavalier disregard of great and basic constitutional liberties, of those liberties which my right hon. friend says are guaranteed to all our people under the charter of British peoples.
Much has been said in criticism of the action the government took with reference to the espionage inquiry. And little, I must say, has been said on the other side. I have received some letters from persons who were concerned about the methods which were adopted, and who have protested about them. I have tried to point out to my correspondents, as I should like to point out to the house, certain vital facts which I think it is high time were pointed out.
It should be pointed out that, while measures of an exceptional nature were taken in the investigation of the Gouzenko charges, the situation was one of grave and acute emergency. The government had reason to believe that information of a most important kind, including information relating to the atomic bomb, was disclosed to a foreign power by persons connected with Canadian governmental activities. Apart altogether from the other kinds of information that were being communicated, the communication of information about the atomic bomb might have had the most far-reaching and devastating consequences. Anyone who has read much about the effects of the atomic bomb-a book, which, I believe, is called "Hiroshima" is a

Human Rights
good example-which include the agonizing suffering and mass destruction of men, women and children, must realize the appalling consequences which might have flowed from the flouting by government servants of governmental policies in relation to secrecy in this field; and from violation of oaths of secrecy, and from violation of the Official Secrets Act. Let us not forget that we were not confronted with any ordinary situation at all. We were confronted with an extraordinary one.
While exceptional steps were taken to bring into the open conspiracies which we had reason to believe existed, and which have since been proved to have existed, there are certain facts which should be borne in mind. One is that every step taken by or on behalf of the government was legal. The report of the royal commission clearly establishes this fact. To hear a great deal of the criticism made, one would have thought we in some way violated the Habeas Corpus Act or we had broken certain laws. As the hon. member for Rosthern pointed out this afternoon, however, no order in council was passed that was not authorized by legislation of this parliament. We operated under the authority of this parliament, and the royal commission operated under the authority of this parliament in every step it took.
The second fact is that no one denies the capacity or sense of responsibility of the royal commission itself.
There has been some criticism of the government for selecting two judges of the Supreme Court of Canada as royal commissioners, but I would like to point out to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), who is very strong on this point, that there are certain great and grave situations wherein it is not inconsistent with the dignity of a judge, nor is it inconsistent with the duties of the judiciary for them to act as royal commissioners, and that fact has been recognized in the old country as well as in this country for a great many years. Here, if ever, there was a case where the public must be satisfied of the impartiality of the commissioners and of the reliability of their findings, and therefore we felt we were completely justified in going to the highest tribunal in the land and taking two judges from that court and setting them up as a royal commission.
No one denies the capacity or sense of responsibility of the eminent counsel who conducted the investigation before the commission. One of them was president of the Canadian Bar Association at the time, and the others were men of character and capacity, and a deep sense of responsibility.
No one denies the gravity or emergent character of the situation to be dealt with. No one denies the desirability of dealing with the situation effectively. No one denies that the investigation might very well have been a fiasco had not such steps been taken.
In this event, if it had been a fiasco, we would today have been assured by those who are attacking us that the investigation was a mere witch hunt, that the bogey of communism had once more been falsely raised, and that Gouzenko's stories were merely figments of the imagination. That is what we would have been told today, and this is borne out by the avidity with which critics of the government seize upon every acquittal to prove that the prosecution of the person acquitted was unjustifiable, a conclusion which is invalid, as I shall try to show in a few minutes.
So much by the way of background of the position we took. I am not going into all the charges, accusations and grounds of criticism of the government and of the royal commission; they are pretty well answered in the report of the royal commission itself. But it is said that we should not be circulating that report, and it is said in particular that a certain note which the government authorized to be placed in a statement appended to the report should not be circulated.
Let me read what my hon. friend says on that latter point, and this is something which I feel like almost indignantly repudiating. On page 3156 of Hansard, he says:
I abhor communism and all its works, but the added words signify an attitude that no government should display. They indicate a spirit of resentment because the courts of the country saw fit not to allow the declaration of a royal commission.
Canadians have the right not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without process of law. Should they not also have the right not to be deprived of reputations by an executive that is exasperated by the results in the courts? That addendum by the government condones the lawless enforcement of the law.
Let me tell the house, in case they have not been following this matter, what the addendum was. A report was published and, as I shall argue in a few moments, it was not only our right but our duty to circulate that report. Certain of the persons reported against were tried in the criminal courts and were acquitted. We felt that, in fairness to
Human Riahts

them, the fact of their acquittals should be communicated to those who received the report, and so we put in the front of the report a statement that certain persons had been acquitted. But we made this addendum:
It must not be assumed that in any case the evidence before the commission and that adduced at the criminal proceedings were the same.
It is that addendum which makes some critics see red-I am not trying to make a pun on the word "red." It makes them very angry because they say it is unfair to the accused. If we had not added it, the fact that we were publicizing the acquittals would be taken as a criticism or perhaps a repudiation of the work of the commission, and it was certainly far from our wish to express any criticism of that kind, for reasons which I shall state.
I think the answer to what my hon. friend says there, and to similar forms of criticism, can be given to the house most concisely by my reading a letter which I wrote to one of the civil liberties associations with whom I have an enjoyable correspondence, the civil liberties association of Manitoba. That asso-cation, on the 28th day of April, sent me a resolution which was in the following terms:
1.	That the Canadian government be requested to repudiate the note added to the report of the royal commission on espionage and dated January 30, 1947, reading:
"It should not be assumed that in any ease the evidence before the royal commission and that adduced in the criminal proceedings were the same."
This statement is not only unfair to persons acquitted in the recent trials but also implies contempt for the law of Canada as administered in the courts.
2.	That the Canadian government be requested to withdraw from circulation the report of the Kelloek-Taschereau royal commission.
Upon receiving that letter, I replied-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Who sent it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: -to the Civil Liberties Association of Manitoba in the following terms; and I am reading this letter into the record because it replies to the charges that have been made by various persons including the hon. member for Lake Centre, and replies more compendiously than I otherwise could.


Mr. HACKETT:: Who wrote the letter?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did.


John Thomas Hackett: No. Who wrote the
letter to which you are replying?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is signed by David Owens, secretary, civil liberties association; and my
reply is addressed to David Owens, secretary, Civil Liberties Association of Manitoba. It reads as follows:
Ottawa, 10th May, 1947.
Dear sir,-
I have your letter of April 28, 1947, advising me of the contents of a resolution recently adopted at a general meeting of the Civil Liberties Association of Manitoba. This resolution requests that the Canadian government withdraw from circulation the report of the Kelloek-Taschereau royal commission. I am of opinion that I would not be justified in recommending that this be done.
_ This commission, as you know, consisted of two judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land. They were assisted bycounsel of equally high standing in their profession, one of whom was the president of the Canadian Bar Association. The proceedings were conducted with care and fairness and every witness was given the fullest opportunity to tell his story and explain all circumstances which appeared in any way to reflect upon him. The result of this investigation is a report of immense value to the nation. To deny such a report to the public because some of the witnesses were later acquitted after prosecution would be in my opinion unwarranted.
Is it not possible that the difference between the purpose and nature of the proceedings before the royal commission and the purpose and nature of the proceedings before the criminal courts has been overlooked? The royal commission was not a court having criminal jurisdiction. Its findings were based upon preponderance of evidence, while those of the criminal courts were based upon proof or lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The commission in the report, after setting out the evidence adduced before them, stated its opinion as to what certain witnesses and others did. There is no reason why this opinion should not be presented to the public together with a statement of the grounds upon which the opinion was based. It is open to the public to decide whether or not the opinion arrived at was a correct one.
It must be kept constantly in view that the report disclosed a most serious conspiracy to furnish secret information to a foreign power and that subversive elements had infiltrated into the public service on a considerable scale. In a matter of such vital importance to the whole Canadian public, it would be, in my judgment, indefensible to withhold from publication the commission's report of the steps it took and of the conclusions it arrived at. The withdrawal of the report from circulation would, I believe, be an undemocratic suppression of information to which the public is entitled.
The resolution passed by your association also requests that the Canadian government repudiate the note added to the report reading: "It should not be assumed that in any case the evidence before the royal commission and that adduced in the criminal proceedings were the same." The allegations advanced for this request are two in number: First, that the statement is unfair to persons acquitted in the recent trials, and secondly, that the statement implies contempt for the law of Canada as administered in the courts.
I regret to say that I am unable to agree that either of these allegations is correct. There are, in my opinion, good reasons for the addi-

Human Rights
tion of the note in question. It -was recognized that upon acquittals taking place, it would be only fair to those who were acquitted to state that fact to those receiving the report. The statement setting out the acquittals was therefore added and circulated with the report. This statement, however, would _ have been incomplete and misleading had it not contained a note to the effect that the acquittals were not necessarily based on the same evidence which was adduced before the commission. The note might even have gone further and pointed out that the rules of procedure and the evidentiary principles upon which findings were based were necessarily different. In any event, had the note not been added, those receiving the report might very well have come to the conclusion that the government was, by pointing out the fact of the acquittals, criticizing or repudiating the work of the commission, which the government was and is far from wishing to do.
The government regards the work of the commission as having been immeasurably beneficial to the interests of Canada. The commission did its duty and did it well, just as the courts did their duty and did it well. The commission was set up for one purpose, the courts functioned for another. The rules of evidence and procedure were not the same, the evidence itself was not necessarily the same, and a belief in the propriety of the steps and action taken by the commission is in no way inconsistent with a belief in the propriety of the steps and action taken by the courts.
I am unable to understand the following sentence in the resolution referred to in your letter: "This statement is not only unfair to persons acquitted in the recent trials, but also implies contempt for the law of Canada as administered in the courts." For the reasons which I have stated, I do not regard the statement as unfair to the persons acquitted in the recent trials, nor can I agree that it implies any contempt for the law of Canada as administered in the courts.
I accept your statement that your association in no way condones subversive activity, but I must observe that the withdrawal from circulation of the report of the commission as requested by your association, while not condoning subversive activity, would make the climate more favourable to the growth of subversive activity and remove a formidable barrier to its spread.
Yours very truly,


Mr. REID:: Did you get an answer to that one?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, not yet.


Thomas Reid: I should not think you would.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I come now to a part of the speech made by the hon. member for Lake Centre, in which he quotes with approval certain statements of Professor Lower, as reported at page 3156 of Hansard, one of which is as follows:
The conduct of government, from Prime Minister to royal commission, over the espionage case, bore every appearance of hysteria, when it did not bear the appearance, as unfortunately in certain quarters it did, of sheer persecution.
This raises the important question: Should the concern which the government felt over the disclosures of Gouzenko be characterized as hysteria, or was it the type of grave concern which the people of Canada expect from a government having a deep sense of responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, the preservation of its institutions and the future of the state? If hon. members think that the proper word to describe the state of mind of the government was "hysteria" rather than "responsible concern", then the hon. member for Lake Centre has made out a strong case against the government. But if they feel that the concern we displayed was justified, then there is no case against the government, but on the contrary there is the strongest of all possible cases for the government. As for myself, I believe that our concern was justified to the hilt. I believe that if we had not taken prompt, vigorous and effective measures, we should have been recreant to our trust. The government of Canada, by resolutely investigating and bringing to light the shocking facts revealed in the espionage inquiry, rendered an immense service, not only to the people of this country, but to those of other democratic countries. The view now put forward-and apparently with approval-by the hon. member for Lake Centre is that we became too excited. One would almost think, to hear this view, that, after all, this was not an important affair. But I am satisfied' that is not the view taken either by the rank and file of the Canadian people or by responsible observers abroad. We have been attacked for the manner in which the investigation was conducted, but some of this attack has been a manifestation of party politics. I confidently assert to this house, from conversations I have had with many Canadians in all walks of life, that far from the public resenting the steps taken by the government, they endorse those steps. It is all very well for opposition critics and arm-chair critics, now that the offenders are brought to justice, the plots exposed and the public of democratic countries put on the alert, to indulge in criticism of this, that or the other step which was taken; but these opposition critics would have sung a very different song if, as a result of our public service not having been cleansed of subversive elements, the drive against our institutions and our liberties had gone unchecked. We had a grave responsibility to shoulder. We assumed that responsibility and are prepared to defend the course we took, both here and elsewhere.


Mr. EUGENE MARQUIS (Kamouraska) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us calls for the nomination of a com-
Human Rights

mittee on human rights and fundamental freedoms, which would also seek the best way to fulfil certain obligations entered into by all members of the united nations organization.
In this materialistic age of ours, the terms right, justice and freedom are in some quarters strangely misused. Some so-called master minds construe them so as to cover all sorts of errors and abuses. They claim the freedom to do everything they please as if such a right were admitted, in a well-organized Christian society. For them, a right is a means to any end. They would establish the principles of a new justice, or rather injustice, to do away with social order, to deny God, divine and natural laws, to substitute a pagan state to the Almighty Himself, who is the source of all good and therefore of all rights and freedoms.
I wish to protest against this materialistic and pagan trend. Allow me to say briefly what are, to my mind, freedom, and right and justice.
To be free does not mean to have one's own way with everything, to such a pass as to exalt evil to a system and to legalize injustice. To be free does not mean to organize opposition to God and persecution against His ministers, to deprive man of his faith in God. To be free does not mean to tolerate open warfare against God and the state which is the dispenser of justice from above. Freedom is the right man has to act for the good and not for evil. Liberty is the right to act, for temporal motives, according to human dignity and to the dictates of one's reason, which implies the respect of the rights and property of others, and for spiritual motives, which represent the ultimate end of man.
Indeed, if liberty means the right to do anything why then adopt a bill of rights? If such a bill is not based upon the recognition of God, how can we adopt principles consistent with His justice? If we are not agreed upon the, basic principle of the authority of the state, which consists in enforcing respect for God, private property and social order, what would be the value of declarations which will substitute licence and revolution to true freedom?
Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish as between freedom of worship and the antisocial and anti-religious propaganda of certain sects whose tracts are filled with libels and blasphemies. Those anarchists demand freedom of religion but at the same time they defy the divine and human laws and spread hatred against the Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religions. Far from being advocates of true liberty, they are the fanatical partisans of licence and anarchy. I do not agree 
with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Hiefenbaker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-what a strange combination-in regard to the meaning of freedom of worship.
Jehovah's Witnesses and similar sects are entitled to their beliefs, but let them not deny other citizens the same privilege Let them show regard for the law and the religious convictions of the majority and all will be well. As crown prosecutor for the province of Quebec, I have had to read some of their pamphlets that were a tissue of abuse and blasphemy, repeatedly condemned by our criminal courts. Whenever such people transgress the laws of the land, provincial governments can only summon them before the courts as in the case of any other lawbreakers, and no one should seek to derive some political advantage out of a situation such as that. I don't see why an exception should be made, in the name of freedom, in favour of the very ones who disregard it and attempt, by libel and falsehood, to spread discord and hatred in a country like ours where peace, order and charity should be the rule. Man is not free to sow hatred; for he then abuses liberty which entitles him to act for the good and not for the destruction of society.
Who will claim that a member of society has a right to destroy the other component parts of that body? Right is everyone's due. Justice is that virtue which inclines the will to a recognition of the rights of others.
It is surely neither right nor justice to trample upon one's oath of allegiance or to betray one's country. A Canadian's first duty is to seek his country's welfare. Any deviation from this sacred duty must not only be punished but prevented by all means at the government's disposal.
I, therefore, congratulate the Government for having taken energetic measures to fight communism. A spy ring had been organized and constituted a menace to our country's security. A number of subversive acts were denounced and names were brought to the executive's attention. What was the duty of our government? According to the hon. member for Lake Centre, we should have refrained, for the sake of freedom, from interning those who were suspected of designing against the very existence of the Canadian nation. For the sake of this so-called freedom, were we to permit a group of enemies in our midst to maintain communications with certain foreign powers, to the prejudice of Canada?

Human Rights
Mr. Speaker, not only was the government entitled to do so, but they were in duty bound to stop, by all available means, the activities of a group suspected of jeopardizing our constitutional and social freedoms. It was a duty on a plane far superior to the temporary physical freedom of an individual against whom suspicions have not led to a conclusive proof.
I hope our bill of rights will never allow a traitor to enjoy his freedom while he is a menace to the majority of our citizens.
It is therefore imperative that in the Canadian bill of rights the divine as well as the temporal rights be safeguarded against any encroachment by enemies of Christian faith and social order.
Would it not be necessary, on that occasion, to ensure more protection for the rights of certain citizens and of the racial groups which are the very foundation of this country? As a matter of fact, the structure of our nation has been built up by French- and Englishspeaking Canadians; they have the same rights and it behooves them mutually to respect them, especially as regards language, education and religion. Therefore, I feel that complete recognition of those rights would go a long way toward the achievement of perfect unity in this country.
In the province of Quebec, the Englishspeaking minority enjoys, from the standpoint of education, the same rights and privileges as the French-speaking majority. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why this principle should not be observed in all provinces toward the French-speaking minority. Let this principle be written into the charter of our rights and let the provinces accept all its implications by ratifying it. That is a ground of dominion-provincial understanding which no province would have the right to ignore. In so saying, I am neither raising prejudice nor rousing passions.
On the contrary, I claim, in the name of true liberty and plain justice, a right which is no doubt recognized by an overwhelming majority of this country's citizens. It is through mutual recognition of those fundamental rights that we shall make Canada a Christian democracy whose influence will extend throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, let us be realistic and sincere. Our liberties rest upon the ten commandments which constitute a charter for free men in a Christian society. We must draw from true principles of charity the boundaries of freedom, that is the right to act legitimately for our own good and that of our fellow-citizens. Let us do justice unto others as we would wish upon ourselves and there will be room in this
Canada of ours for all men respectful of divine, natural and civil laws. I hope that our country will never give shelter to the traitors, the anarchists and the ungodly.
(Text):


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house has listened with interest and profit to the sober statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley). I have never criticized, either openly or otherwise, the action of the government in the espionage trials. I had my doubts, my fears and my reservations in regard to the procedure, but I did not know how much the government knew and consequently I felt that I was not in position to judge as to what they had done. On the other hand, I did not criticize those who were criticizing the government, because I felt that 'that was their right. But I did feel that there was a little too much criticism in the espionage cases when one took into consideration the lack of criticism in a case which I felt was much more important, where not just a mere handful of people were concerned but where several thousands were concerned. Several thousand Canadians had their freedom interfered with, their property rights taken away, and there was very little heard about the matter.
The persons concerned in the espionage cases were brought to trial and some were found guilty, which was justification to some extent for 'the action the government had taken. Others were found not guilty. But they had their day in court, while these other people to whom I refer, Canadians of Japanese origin, have not had their day in court up to this day. So I felt all along that too much attention was given to the one ease and not sufficient to the other. In reality, the circumstances, that is the interference with freedom, was 'the same in both cases. If it was wrong to take away the freedom, at least for a short time until they were convicted or released, of the few concerned in the espionage cases, surely it was wrong in the case of the people of Japanese origin.
What I wanted to speak about tonight and my reason for taking part in the debate is to say that during the course of the debate I felt that the fundamental principles underlying human rights and human freedoms were not very much discussed. In my opinion, the basis of freedom is equality; where there is no equality freedom is limited. My reading of history leads me to believe that history down through the ages is largely a struggle of the working class to throw off the yoke of its exploiters and masters. The growth and extension of democracy have been brought about by
Human Rights

new classes coming up and taking part in the government. By such process has democracy been extended.
Much has been said about Magna Carta. Magna Carta in reality conferred freedom on but a small segment of the population of England of that time. The great mass of the English people were yet beyond its benefits, and indeed not for centuries down through the industrial revolution and even until 1874 when universal suffrage for the male population was adopted in Britain did the mass partake of the benefits of democracy.
I have here "British History in the Nineteenth Century", by George Macaulay Trevelyan, a noted historian, from which I quote a paragraph or two to indicate the position of the working class in Britain around 1795. At page 158 of this book, the author says:
The Tory panacea for unrest had been proclaimed in 1795 by Bishop Horsley when he said that "the mass of the people had nothing to do with the laws but to obey them."


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Angus MacInnis: Because they had nothing to do with the laws. They did not have the franchise. They had no part in the administration of their country's affairs. As the reverend bishop said-, all they had- to do with the law was to obey it, and that remained the situation for a considerable time after that. So those who think that liberties and freedom are being curtailed are in my opinion, away off the mark. I do not believe that liberties and freedom are being curtailed, I believe that liberties and freedom are being extended every day. That is not to say that we should not be careful of those liberties and concerned to preserve them. To continue the quotation from Mr. Trevelyan, he says at page 159: Citizens, indeed, the workmen were not. They had no word in the government of England, and no civic position in the local area which they had come to inhabit. If they happened to be lodged within a chartered town, they lived under a close corporation and its municipal magistrates. If they were outside such precincts, they were under the rural justices of the peace and the antiquarian relics of the court leet. Neither urban nor rural authorities were called upon to provide for health, lighting, decency or education in a new factory quarter. They were content to quell riots and to arrest trade unionists, sedition-ists, deists, frame-breakers and other criminals.
For a long, long time after, that was the position of the working class in England, but that is not their position today, and they are not treating their so-called superiors in the way their own class had been treated for so many centuries.

Along the same lines I have another quotation from "The British People, 1746-1946," by G. D. H. Cole and Raymond Postgate. It covers the period from 1746 to 1946, and referring to the position of the industrial workers in Britain and more particularly to children of a tender age, the- authors say:
To this early period of labour shortage belongs the "parish apprenticeship" system, under which many thousands of children from London and other large towns, having become inmates of pauper institutions, were shipped in droves to the new factory areas, there to be bound apprentices to some cotton lord who undertook to feed and clothe them in a barrack built specially for their occupation, and even to give them a minimum of schooling in his factory school. This system, which, as we have seen, Peel's "first Factory Act" of 1802 was designed to bring under some sort of regulation, died out rapidly as soon as local supplies of child labour became available; for the factory owners soon found that "free" labour, which they could engage and discharge at will, came cheaper than pauper labour which they were bound to maintain throughout the period of apprenticeship, whether trade was good or bad. In bad times, the "free" factory children had to be kept by their parents, or out of the local poor rates, of which the factory owners paid only a relatively small part.
Those were the conditions in Britain for many, many years. How different in Great Britain today, under that "terrible" socialist government, where the welfare of the children is the first concern of the state.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is it any better-


Angus MacInnis: It is better.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Any
better than here?


Angus MacInnis: I am not talking about that at the moment. But. while equality and the benefits of equality, freedom, have been increasing down through the years, they are still far from perfect.
I have heard several speakers declare that we could not have social security without the danger of losing our freedom. That is the philosophy of the well to do, the philosophy of the comfortably fixed, those who already have both security and freedom. But let me tell those people that the person who has lost his security has also lost his freedom; for what freedom has the unemployed got? What freedom does that man enjoy who must come and go at the behest of another? All the freedom he has is to accept what he gets, or he has freedom to starve. The man who has lost his security has also lost his freedom.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: And his human
rights.

Human Rights


Angus MacInnis: And his human rights; that is quite correct.


Jean Lesage: That is what the Prime Minister said.


Angus MacInnis: Y'es, and he has been . Prime Minister for a long, long time. My hon. friend spoke this afternoon and there were a great many flaws in his philosophy. It could be shot through with so many holes that you could drive a horse and cart through them.


Jean Lesage: It was the philosophy I learned in a university.


Angus MacInnis: I did not have the good fortune to go to a university, but I will back my philosophy and my ability to state it against the hon. member's any day, also its correctness in relation to present economic and social conditions. As I said before, as regards those who talk of losing our freedom if we are to have security, that is the philosophy of the well-to-do. We cannot have freedom unless we have security. We cannot have freedom in its fullness unless we have security.
A moment ago I said that equality was the basis, and the only basis, that freedom can have. In this country, in so far as there is division among us, that division arises because of certain people wanting a greater share of the goods they produce. Others fear that if those people do get a greater share of the wealth their labour produces they themselves will have to do with a smaller share.
That, after all, is the difference between us, largely, in the many industrial and the other disputes which arise between the various classes in the community. There is good ground for such disputes. The man who lives on an income of $5,000 or $10,000 has a great many things that the man who lives on an income of $1,000 or $1,200 or less does not have. Not only can the man with the income of $5,000 or $10,000 have certain things for himself, but he can do certain things for his children that the other man cannot do. And does anyone really think any man with spirit will see other children having things his children cannot have, without making a protest about it?
I have here a news item from the Ottawa Journal of May 6, 1947. It is a report of a speech made by Doctor G. E. Hall, dean of the medical school and president-elect of the university of Western Ontario. He was talking about the students attending university, and pointed out that the children of those in the
low-income groups had far less chance of attending university than the children of those in the high income groups, or the middle income groups.


Jean-Thomas Richard: We all know that.


Angus MacInnis: I am telling it to you now, so that you will know it better and do something about it, and so that you will not complain when the man in the low-income group wishes to increase his income so that he can send his children to university, too.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is that your fault or mine?


Angus MacInnis: I did not say it was your fault.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: I would ask the hon. member not to interrupt.


Angus MacInnis: Doctor Hall said:
There is no such thing as equality of opportunity. Among the so-called superior students those whose parents had incomes of $5,000 or more went with one hundred per cent to university. Only forty-two per cent of children whose parents with incomes of $3,000 to $5,000 went to university, and only twenty-two per cent from families with incomes of $2,000 or less.
Since we were told a few days ago by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that more than one-half of the earning population of this country received incomes of less than $1,700, it will be seen how few of those in that group will ever get higher education and, consequently, be in a position to take any of the better jobs which come along in either commerce, government or the professions.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does Doctor Hall give the proportion of those who finish university? I think the hon. member is right in his figure respecting those who enter; but I think it is those in the lower income groups who get through. I was one of them.


Angus MacInnis: Those figures are not here; but I think that is not particularly important in this connection. What is important is not that one should have the ability to finish his education in a university, but that he should have an opportunity to enter it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I agree with that; I just wondered if the hon. member had the figure.


Angus MacInnis: I have no fault with the question. As I said, unless we extend equality of opportunity it is idle to talk about human rights and fundamental freedoms, because they do not and cannot exist without equality. I am not ,and I think no one else is in a position to say if a bill of rights should be passed
Human Rights

by this parliament as a statute, or should be an addition to our constitution. I believe they have a bill of rights in the constitution of the United States. I spent some few years m that country and through that fact together with my reading, I am fairly conversant with what takes place over there. I do not think they have any more freedom or assurance ol freedom than we have in this country.
They passed numerous laws, besides the bill of rights itself, to protect the freedom of the individual. But instead of protecting the freedom of the individual, some of them have been used to protect the freedom of big business.
I hold in my hand a book entitled "The Folklore of Capitalism", by T. W. Arnold, who, I believe, was at one time either the attorney general or the assistant attorney general of the United States.


Jean-Thomas Richard: How old is it?


Angus MacInnis: The book?


Jean-Thomas Richard: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: It was published in 1937.


Jean-Thomas Richard: You are
always quoting some old book.


Angus MacInnis: Old books are worth
reading.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Yes, but you do not stand by them.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Arnold was referring to the due process of law in the United States constitution, the fifth amendment. The due process of law provides that no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval or other forces. And he pointed out that, instead of that amendment's now being used to protect the ordinary citizen, the ordinary trade unionist or other person who comes within the grip of the law, today-and this is what he says at page 34:
Today this amendment is one of the reasons why railroads are protected from a federal pension system. Public control of business becomes the same as taking away property. Great national organizations become individuals.
We cannot in my opinion, base our assurance of enjoying freedom on a statute or as part of the constitution.
I think the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) would argue that there are sufficient safeguards in our laws to protect the people who were mixed up in the espionage cases. But it is clear that those statutes did

not save them. I am certainly convinced that there were laws to protect the persons of Japanese origin who were removed so ruthlessly from their homes on the Pacific coast. And yet it was not done.
Our liberties, regardless of what is in the law, can never be safe unless we are ever watchful that nothing shall interfere with them.


Mr. PAUL EDMOND GAGNON (Chicoutimi) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the government is to be commended for proposing the nomination of a committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms. I hope this motion will meet with great success.
But let us not delude ourselves. The standard definitions of freedom and human rights were coined centuries ago and have long since been embodied in the statute books of so-called civilized nations, where they lie dormant, save when the crash of guns breaks in upon their slumber.
Every time men are bent on devouring one another, those rights and freedoms provide material for tirades and slogans intended to whet the soldiers' mettle. But when the struggle is over, they don the shrouds which they had shed for a time, and men soon forget the destruction wrought in their name.
"All good maxims are in the world, but we fail only to apply them." Thus spoke Pascal, three hundred years ago.
The important thing, to my mind, is not therefore to seek new definitions, nor to enlarge the scope of our governing principles, nor yet to place a new legislation on our statute books, but to show Americans, Europeans and Asiatics how we Canadians make use of the freedoms secured through the valour of our pioneers, the heroism of our discoverers, the martyrdom of our missionaries and the blood of our soldiers. It is to act in such a way that our country set an example to the rest of the world, so that all may know that in North America, in this beloved Canada of ours liberty is respected by all, and that it is alive not only in our minds and in our hearts but also in the acts of our parliaments.
"Theories are not conducive to progress; they only lead to upheaval." We must not imitate Plutarch who beat his slave while writing fine speeches on morals, or Cicero who reproached himself with feeling too deep a sorrow upon the death of a beloved servant.


Jean Lesage: Or Mr. Duplessis!


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: "Christianity with its dou trine of equality before God and human brotherhood caused the greatest moral upheaval among ancient communities" and set

Human Rights
free millions of slaves and Christianity will bring perfect happiness to modern society. If mankind is to survive it must heed the precepts set forth in the gospel by the Saviour and put into practice the divine commandment: "Love thy neighbour."
Liberty, Mr. Speaker, does not thrive upon empty talk and legal documents. It requires concrete facts, tangible acts, a sincere attachment and courageous men ready to carry its torch into all the homes of the world, from the richest to the poorest.
Liberty is dying today from the ridiculous misuse of its name; it is withering away from abuse in the hands of leaders of nations. In order to give it a radiant and' beaming life, it is necessary to apply strictly the sacred principles which make it so fine and so essential. It must be jealously guarded against abuse by those who, mistaking it for licence, turn it into anarchy. In heaven's name I hope that the new charter will not have the same lamentable fate as its famous predecessor, the Atlantic charter of April 14, 1941. Canada, with other allied countries, had also signed, on January 1, 1942, the famous declaration of the allied nations, which came out of the Churchill-Roosevelt agreement. What happened later on, to quote only one of the articles of the charter, clause 3, which provided that:
Their governments respect the right of all nations to choose the political system under which the latter shall live and desire restoration of the sovereignty and autonomy of those deprived of them by violence?
Who thinks today of that declaration, Poland enslaved by Russia, Czechoslovakia, Russia's satellite, Archbishop Stepinac's Yugoslavia, who all signed this solemn pact and are now prone under the muscovite yoke?
The Right Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), referred last Friday to the many violations of the Magna Carta in Scotland, his native land. It would be interesting to recall here the many violations of our constitution of 1867 and the provincial liberties transgressed and tampered with in the last 80 years by the central power.
The government, which must set the example should respect and recognize provincial rights just as hon. members of this house should be consistent in granting others the same freedom they claim for themselves and in not denying their political opponents, outside this house, the right to disagree on certain matters and to fight for the triumph of their cause.
It is so easy and it takes so little courage to insult those who are absent and are immensely superior to their slanderers, that I am not surprised to see some hon. members take the opportunity of their contributing to
the debate or use the services of that hotbed of Liberal propaganda, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to attack those who, in spite of blackmail by the federal authorities, in spite of all sorts of threats and pressure by centralizers, stubbornly insist on defending the rights and freedom of the citizens they are committed to help and protect.


Jean Lesage: Sacred freedom!


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: If, however, there was ever a man who should give the example of gratitude and respect for the provincial authority, who should, I repeat, be grateful to the Quebec government for allowing him to enjoy the benefits of our institutions, our broad-mindedness and the goodwill of all our people, it is the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Hartt), whose recent charges against the leader of the Union Nationale and whose perfidious innuendoes against worthy nuns of Montreal are particularly malicious and stupid. Have not the French Canadians been specially generous to him-


Jean Lesage: That is not your fault.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: -and have they not shown him a measure of confidence which I am tempted to regard as being exaggerated?
For my part, I am glad to tell him that every time he will attack, without reason, the authorities of my province, whether they foe represented by Liberals or Union Nationale members, every time he uses insulting words against those who have been entrusted with the leadership of Quebec, I shall rise in my place to denounce him. "Freedom of expression is not freedom to lie," wrote Andre Maurois.
If the French Canadians were treated by the Ottawa government and by the other provinces of the dominion with as much consideration as the province of Quebec shows for its minorities, we would not have to spend our energy in claiming rights which should be recognized to us without any resort to bargaining or subterfuge. The province of Quebec is in favour of order and peace. "Freedom is our sun", and we will not permit organized gangs or godless sects to extinguish its light.
We live on very good terms with our fellow-citizens whose language and' religion are different from ours, but the government which is now in power in my province will never let Jehovah's Witnesses, communists and others of the same ilk-


Jean Lesage: And the Lachute workers.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: -take advantage of the freedom we extend to them to sabotage our institutions and contaminate the sound ele-
Human Rights

ment of our population. Let them go to Manitoba, if they wish. They shall no doubt enjoy there the protection of the honourable member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), who seems to have such a soft place for them in his heart. We shall not complain if they move there, and we shall not be sorry to see them go. In the province of Quebec, no one has the right to commit crimes in the name of freedom and' I hope our leaders will never forget that "the word freedom may sometimes lead men into slavery".
Because it cherishes freedom, the province of Quebec does not want to be fouled by trouble-makers, anarchists or advocates of revolution. Neither does she want to become a ghetto for the communist-minded Jews from the lowest strata in European countries.


Mr. HARTT:: Is that what you call
freedom?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Before concluding, I wish to quote a few words from a highly respected patriot of our province, Canon Lionel Groulx. They show much better than I could do it myself the contribution made by the French Canadians in the preparation of an unwritten bill of rights in this country:	.
Never before in the civilized world have freedom, the rights of the human person and western humanism been discussed as much as they are at present. We French Canadians have not contributed quite as much as others to the greatness of our country in certain spheres, the commercial, financial and industrial, for instance, but no one has surpassed our common contribution to Canada's political or constitutional progress, to its climb towards freedom. One hundred years ago, our people were the first to disseminate the initial formulae of political liberty. Nowadays, we again remain in the van of the country's national aspiration towards a less theoretical independence and in its resistance to oppressive centralization. The achievement of Acadian and French-Canadian minorities in Canada has run a parallel course. The people of our race have fought and still suffer today; Why? Because they have refused to submit 'to the rule of might; because, true sons of freedom-loving ancestors, they have not stood for any encroachment upon their rights as fathers, men and citizens; because they believed in Christian equality of rights and refused to consider constitutions mere scraps of paper. I claim that such examples of courage and human dignity, though set by humble folk, none the less carry the stamp of grandeur and fruitfulness. These little people have done good service to the whole country. The fact must be proclaimed and will remain our exclusive glory as long as it is useful and fitting to resist oppressive state control as well as blind levelling powers that aim at standardizing the species; as long as clinging to the stars remains a lofty privilege, as long as we hold necessary to the life and greatness of the country reverence for those ancient ideals called spiritual values, that is to say, loyalty to one's cultural heritage, human freedom, justice and right.

(Text):
Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin); I have listened to this debate with much interest, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot say that I feel very happy as a result of it. I have listened to the criticism from this side of the house. Unfortunately I do not understand the French language, so that I do not know what the French-speaking members have said. But I cannot agree with the criticism made of the Department of Justice and the royal commission for their part in bringing the spies to trial. I must say I do not quite see the purpose of this bill of rights. I do not quite see what is behind it. I do not know why Canadians should need to pass laws in this day and age for the purpose of securing the freedoms and human liberties. Who and what threaten our liberties today? The Canadian people have arrived at a state of freedom which, if it does not surpass, certainly equals the liberty of any people who have ever lived on this earth. It seems to me that what threatens the freedom of the Canadian people -and that of all other people for that matter- is nothing more or less than the threat of surrender of the sovereignty of this country. To those people who are so anxious to protect the liberties of the Canadian people, I put it to them to tell this house and the people outside this house how they intend to guarantee the freedom of the Canadian people when they propose to surrender that freedom to international control. That is What I should like to be told. Many hard things have been said of the procedure taken against the spies. I am not a lawyer, so that I am ignorant of legal terms and language; but many harsh things have been said about the actions of the commission and even of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Spies are not ordinary criminals. The ordinary criminal attacks individuals and he can be treated as such, because his threat is no more than a threat against an individual. But a spy is at war against the state; that is, he is at war against everybody in the state. It is true that some of the accused were afterwards found not guilty. I must say that I think it is curious that the longer the trials were continued, the bigger was the percentage of the accused who were released. I know there was an immense amount of pressure brought to bear. One hon. member-I think it was the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot)-obtained the information that outside pressure was being brought to bear in the interests of the accused; pressure from the United States, for instance. But even if some of the accused were found not guilty, is anyone

Human Rights
so naive as to think that people who chose as their intimate friends and companions above all others-as the accused did for years- persons who were afterwards convicted of spying, did not know what was going on? I cannot bring myself to believe such a story. Legal proof may have been wanting, but I have no doubt in my mind of their moral guilt.
I think that the people of this country owe an immense debt. Perhaps the greatest service that has ever been rendered to them, in peace time at least, was the service which was rendered by the Department of Justice, the royal commission and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by exposing the spy ring. I should like to record my appreciation of the fact that at least some of these spies were brought to justice. If there was a mistake I think it was that the inquiry stopped short. There are plenty more, Mr. Speaker, who while they may not be committing legal offences, beyond question are working to undermine the faith and loyalty of the people of Canada, and such people have no right to be in the employ of this or any other government. I was glad when Mr. Ahearn, who, I believe, is not a politician, was moved to provide for Mr. Gouzenko's future. I think that was a fine gesture, and I should like to congratulate Mr. Ahearn on what he did. For let us consider that in spite of our Department of Justice and even despite our most excellent mounted police-and there is no finer police force in the world than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-had it not been for Mr. Gouzenko, who was able to produce the legal evidence, these spies still would be at work selling out this country and the Canadian people. Therefore I say the Canadian people owe an immense debt to Mr. Gouzenko for what he has done.
With regard to the civil liberties organizations, there is no doubt that most of them are part of the communist front. I am not going into that aspect of the matter tonight; I make the statement, and I shall stay with it.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend permits, he referred to Mr. Igor Gouzenko, not Mr. Nicolai Gouzenko?


Mr. JAQUES:: Well, I do not know that I did, but the man to whom I was referring was the man who supplied the information which brought about the conviction of these spies.
With regard to the civil liberties people, who are so anxious to assert and to parade their belief in liberty, let me quote from the report of the royal commission, at the bottom of page 223. I have quoted this before in the house, but I make no apology for quoting it again:
A statesman with every means of observation wrote in 1937:
"A communist is not only the holder of certain opinions; he is the pledged adept of a well thought out means of enforcing them. The anatomy of discontent and revolution has been studied in every phase and aspect, and a veritable drill book prepared in a scientific spirit for subverting all existing institutions. The method of enforcement is as much a part of the communist faith as the doctrine itself. At first the time honoured principles of liberalism and democracy are invoked to shelter the infant organism. Free speech, the right of public meeting, every form of lawful political agitation and constitutional right are paraded and asserted. Alliance is sought with every popular movement towards the left."
That is a quotation from the book "Great Contemporaries," by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill.
I now come to what I think is the main point of this whole question. How were decent, honourable, loyal citizens converted into spies, so that they were not only willing but anxious to work against their own country? We have the answer in the report of the royal commission, and I am going to quote it at length, for I know that very few people outside this house have read this report. Here the commissioners are describing how these young Canadians were persuaded and twisted and turned from their loyalty to this country to become spies, and at the bottom of page 72 they say:
As the courses of study in the "cells" undermine gradually the loyalty of the young man or woman who joins .them, it is necessary to say something as to the content of the courses pursued in them, as that is reflected by the evidence.
The curriculum includes the study of political and philosophic works, some of them far from superficial, selected to develop in the students an essentially critical attitude towards western democratic society. This phase of the preparation also includes a series of discussions on current affairs, designed to further a critical attitude toward the ideals of democratic society.
But this curriculum would appear in reality to be designed not to promote social reform where it might be required, but to weaken the loyalty of the group member towards his or her own society as such.
Linked with these studies at all stages, moreover, goes an organized indoctrination calculated to create in the mind of the study-group member an essentially uncritical acceptance at its face value of the propaganda of a foreign state.
Accordingly the study groups are encouraged to subscribe to communist books and periodicals. The Canadian Tribune and Clarion of Toronto, Hew Masses (a periodical published in the United States). National Affairs of Toronto, and Club Life have been among those mentioned as regular objects of study and discussion in these groups, as well as selected books on Russia.
Human Rights

In some cases the effect of these study courses seems to be a gradual development of a sense of divided. loyalties, or in extreme cases of a transferred loyalty.
Thus it seems to happen that through these study groups some adherents, who begin by feeling that Canadian society is not democratic or not equalitarian enough for their taste, are gradually led to transfer a part or most of their loyalties to another country, apparently without reference to whether that other country is in actual fact more or less democratic or equalitarian than Canada.
Here is a paragraph which to me appears to be important:
Indeed, a sense of internationalism seems in many cases to play a definite role in one stage of the courses. In these cases the Canadian sympathizer is first encouraged to develop a sense of loyalty, not directly to a foreign state, but to what he conceives to be an international ideal. This subjective internationalism is then usually linked almost inextricably through the indoctrination courses and the intensive exposure to the propaganda of a particular foreign state, with the current conception of the national interests of that foreign state and with the current doctrines and policies of communist parties throughout the world.
Let me repeat one sentence:
In these cases the Canadian sympathizer is encouraged to develop a sense of loyalty, not directly to a foreign state, but to what he conceives to be an international ideal.
There is the whole reason for the intense opposition to what is now called nationalism. Nationalism is opposed to internationalism and, as long as a man believes in and stands for nationalism, his loyalty to his country cannot be undermined. That is the reason for the attacks on nationalists, not only in this country but in the United States. Those attacks always come from the communist front. That is why I am a nationalist and why I intend to stay a nationalist. It is the only protection against the modern form of disloyalty. It is the only protection that we have against a foreign state or a foreign ideology which has one purpose only, the enslavement of the world.
That puts a label upon all those people who have attacked nationalists as such, including myself as a so-called leader of nationalists in this country. I am a social crediter, and I am proud of it. That is my answer to those people who attack me, because I stand for Canadian nationalism which means loyalty to Canada and to the Canadian people.


Jean-François Pouliot: The question is not to be a
nationalist leader but to be sincere.


John Horne Blackmore: It is pretty clear that he is sincere.


Norman Jaques: No man can serve two masters. May I turn for one moment to cer-
tain attacks which have been made upon me, upon this group and upon the social credit movement. All social crediters are nationalists in the sense that they are loyal to their country. Nothing will move them from that. I have in my hand a magazine called Today. I do not know whether it has led the fight, but it has certainly been prominent in the fight against and in smearing me and in smearing the social credit movement in Alberta and in Quebec. It always boils down to this:	Our
crime is that we are nationalists. This magazine is called Today, but I understand it is no longer published.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yesterday now.


Norman Jaques: It might be called "Yesterday." I understand that the social crediters of Quebec do not speak of today because their paper is called Vers Demain or towards tomorrow.


Jean-François Pouliot: The old tomorrow.


Norman Jaques: They look ahead, not back. Underneath the title of this magazine today appears, "Angio-Jewish Monthly." Let me say at once that this magazine is no more Jewish than I am and it is no more Anglo than is the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Hartt).


Maurice Hartt: Well put; I agree with that.


An hon. MEMBER:: It must be wrong.


Norman Jaques: I have here the facts of how this magazine was started, who started it and why it was started.	'


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I would call his attention to the motion before the house to which the discussion should be relevant. The motion is to appoint a joint committee of both houses to consider the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the manner in which those obligations accepted by all members of the united nations may best be implemented. The hon. member's discussion should be relevant to the motion before the house.


Norman Jaques: With all due deference, I
maintain that what I am' saying is absolutely pertinent to the subject under discussion. I believe we are discussing a bill to protect our liberties and human rights, and I am endeavouring to show that the real threat to our human rights and freedoms is not the way the Department of Justice handled the spy case; it is the actions of those who are so anxious to discredit the Department of Justice, the royal commission and the mounted police. I think, when hon. members hear what I have to say, they will agree that this is pertinent.

Human Rights
The magazine Today was planned by- a national organizer of the Labour Progressive party, J. Gershman, in order to obtain the confidence of the Zionist and B'Nai Brith organizations. In July, 1944, R. S. Gordon, staff writer of the Canadian Tribune left that publication to become editor of Today. Contributing editors were R. A. Davies, Mark Tarail, Beryl Truax, Bernard Mergler and Dyson Carter, all members of the communist party. Associated with them were Doctor Leopold Infeld, Monica Mugan, J. A. Gagnon, Professor B. Fairley, D. Wren and Louis Fitch, all definitely communist supporters. Daniel Ross, the first business manager, was educational director of the L.P.P. in Toronto. He was replaced by Sam Walsh of the Young Communist League.


Mr. HANSELL:: Quite a picture!


Norman Jaques: The reason I quote that is to point it out to those who apparently are unaware of just what is going on. There you have a magazine which has gone out of its way to attack the social credit movement in general and me in particular, and I might add to attack the leader of this party and the social credit movement in Quebec. It attacks us on the ground of fascism and anti-semitism, but when we come to look into the thing we find that it is purely a communist paper and nothing else.
Just to give one illustration of the policies of this paper, here it attacks the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), for whom I have the greatest respect. It is speaking about the Polish soldiers who were brought to this country and says:
These Polish fascists must be farmers, according to the statement of Mr. St. Laurent-
It includes the former minister of justice. -and will presumably be settled in the province of Alberta, where there are a considerable number of veterans who have not got jobs. Why does Jaques go out of his way to praise Watson Ivirkconnell for espousing the cause of these anti-Semitic thugs-
Referring to the Polish soldiers, of course. -selected for the pogrom spirit? Mustn't sneeze at 4,000 well-trained allies who can be relied upon to teach the people of Alberta and Canada some of the elementary principles of pogrom-making.
That should give the members of the house and the public some idea of the sort of propaganda that is being used against the social credit movement in general and against me in particular, and of course that sort of thing is not confined to this magazine. I quote it only because I happen to have a copy here. If one listens to the radio or reads the columnists in various papers one cannot fail
to be impressed by the immense amount of communist propaganda that is being put out by men like Elmore Philpott, for instance, who for years has been steadily trying to undermine the loyalty of the people of this country, continually criticizing the conditions of this country in comparison with that of Russia, but he takes mighty good care to stay in Canada and not go to Russia.
That brings me to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the film board. Why should men like Philpott be given all the time apparently they want, and they have been given it for years on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? They have no responsibility to anybody. But those who stand up for this country and for its institutions and are loya.. to this country and denounce those who are not loyal, what do we get? Nothing but smears and criticism from the press and the radio.


Jean-François Pouliot: Bill of rights! Bill of rights!


Norman Jaques: Let me quote the second part of Mr. Churchill's statement about communist methods:
The creation of a mild Liberal or socialist regime in some period of convulsion is the first milestone. But no sooner has this been created than it is to be overthrown. Woes and scarcity resulting in bloodshed are to be arranged between the agents of the new government and the working people. An apologetic attitude in the rulers should be turned to profit. Martyrs are to be manufactured. No faith need be, indeed may be kept with non-communists. Every act of good will, of tolerance, of conciliation, of mercy, of magnanimity_ on the part of governments, or statesmen is to be utilized for their ruin. Then when the time is ripe and the moment opportune, every form of lethal violence, from mob revolt to private assassination, must be used without stint or compunction. The citadel will be stormed under the banners of liberty and democracy; and once the apparatus of power is in the hands of the brotherhood, all opposition, all contrary opinion must be extinguished by death. Democracy is but a tool to be used and afterwards broken. The absolute rule of a self-chosen priesthood is to be imposed upon mankind without mitigation, progressively forever. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
Finally, to bring the thing up to date, I notice an article in Saturday's paper, dated from Hollywood' and headed "Russia using Hollywood to crush U.S., says Menjou". I understand that Mr. Menjou is a movie actor. I am not going to read the article, but at the end it says:
Communists in Hollywood have caused hundreds opposing them to be fired by ganging up-
That is by communist ganging up.
-on their innocent patriotic victims.
A year ago the nationalists, for whom I have spoken on two or three occasions, were unable to hold meetings in Los Angeles
Human Rights

because of the communist opposition organized against them-twenty thousand communist pickets in Los Angeles, and those pickets were organized by the then attorney general of the state of California. The leading movie artists and the leading moving-picture people helped to organize and finance that tremendous opposition in Los Angeles. When I was there last December we held our meetings in peace-no pickets and no disturbances. The tide has turned. Now the communists are on the defensive. Now they are appearing before the committee on unAmerican activities, and have to explain their actions. And let me warn the people who think they are doing this country a service by attacking nationalists who are loyal to the country, that the tide is turning. It is turning in the United States, and when it turns there it will turn here. And when it does turn I should not care to be one who has shown that his loyalty is not to Canadian nationalism, but to the cause of internationalism and communism.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to a debate like this, which probably is a late result of the reconsecration week of six years ago. I do not know to what extent it will be profitable, but we hear fine expressions of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) calls good will. It is good will for all the nations of the world, and it is a good sign.
But if we are going back to the past, and if we think of what has happened even in this house, we might recall that seldom charity begins at home, and that some members of parliament are more inclined to say to others: "Do as I say, not as I do."
That is something which happens naturally during a war. It is a case of intermittent folly, and the intervals of lucidity are signalized by amnesia. It is a diagnosis I have often made; and I noticed that during the war there was only one way to think, a way contrary to that which has been expressed by the hon. member who has just spoken. During the war one was not permitted to say that he was a red-blooded Canadian. No; one had to be an imperialist; one had to be a colonial; one had to think only in terms of the British empire and the British commonwealth. That was the mental state, not only of one but of all during the war.
I do not know who has hypnotized my colleagues whom I like very much, but it was not only on this side of the house that that feeling existed. It was the feeling among all 
groups and parties, with few exceptions. And all seemed to be proud of that inferiority complex toward the empire and the commonwealth. Everybody was proud to be an empire serf or a colonial or commonwealth serf. They were glad of that; and in different language they were repeating what Lord Bennett said at the time he sailed for England, "I am going home"-when everybody was sending him elsewhere.
But that is what happened. During the war I was called a supporter of Hitler by those who were strong for the bill of rights, because I was defending the rights of the farmers, the railway men and those who were helping the war effort while working in overalls. During the war I was told by a cabinet minister that the only duty of a Canadian who was in good health was to enlist, thereby leaving aside all labouring men. And there was no protest in the house.
Moreover I remember at the time the plebiscite bill was being discussed in committee, the chairman, who is no longer in the house-


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but until now I do not think his remarks have been relevant to the motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I have been reading most carefully what appears in the motion, and I am inspired by some of the names I see in it. I name nobody, but I should like to make a comparison between what happened in yesteryear and what has been said today.
Naturally, as you know, in court we can examine a witness upon his record. That is not a bad thing. It is permissible to question witnesses upon what we call their credibility.
I am not so sure about the degree of credibility of some of those who have spoken about the bill of rights and about those lofty ideals which I have not yet seen in action.
But, sir, if I read the motion correctly, I find that one of the human rights is freedom of speech; and my freedom of speech was encroached upon by the chairman of the committee of the whole when the plebiscite bill was before that committee. I remember that that gentleman, who is now somewhere else, was railroading the bill through, probably to get spurs-or I do not know what else. I rose in my place and he said, "Section
6	adopted." We were then on section 7. I said, "Mr. Chairman"-and he said, "Section
7	adopted". I said "It is not adopted; I was standing in my place at the time it was

Human Rights
called. I was standing at the time the previous section was called." He said, "It is carried" and it was, finally. Bill of rights!
I remember, sir, that I made reference to the promise made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) to give a million jobs to the veterans. It was sinful to mention that in the house, and he called me a demagogue because I referred to a promise he had not fulfilled.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is a demagogue?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know what it is, but it must be a big insult. Bill of rights! I remember that not so long ago some members were insistent about the N.R.M.A. men who had not served the sentence that had been imposed on them. Bill of rights! Bill of rights! They thought that the law was not severe enough upon them and that Quebec was the greatest sinner in that regard. Bill of rights! Bill of rights! How many times did we hear that from people who have now a new flag-the flag of rights? They never speak of duties but of rights, like Robespierre, and the men who drafted the declaration of human rights at the time of the French	revolution-les san-culottes. Les
sans-culottes qui parle des droits de l'homme. It is the pantless who speak of the rights of man. I use an historical expression.
How much did we suffer? How much were we insulted by the press? We had here Mr. Cardin, who was a most honourable man, and there were others. There was Mr. Raymond. I do not always agree with him, but he is a most honourable gentleman and there were many others. There were those who crossed the floor with him, and especially my dear friend	the hon.	member	for	Levis	(Mr. Bourget), who is a most estimable gentleman. We were all called fifth columnists because we were not imperialists, and it takes courage for the member who preceded me (Mr. Jaques) to have said that he was a nationalist. I am not a nationalist; I am a Liberal. I believe in love of country, and I believe it is no sin to be a nationalist; but it takes	supreme	courage	to	make	that
affirmation in the House of Commons. Why? Because freedom of speech is a fake here. It does not exist. There is an atmosphere which is created to destroy the personality of a member of parliament as soon as he takes the oath of office. We notice that. It is visible. A member of parliament the day after he is sworn in is different from the man he was before he was sworn in. Why? Because there is a special atmosphere here in Ottawa, an atmosphere that reduces the heads of some
people to the size of small oranges as the Indians do in Ecuador. I do not say that to be offensive; I say it because it is true.
Sir, I will tell you of an incident that occurred in 1936. You were not in parliament and the Sergeant-at-Arms was not the one who sits here today. There was a young man from my county, a very nice fellow, who had been appointed a messenger of the House of Commons upon my recommendation. He was doing his work well and was most unobtrusive. No one had complained about him. He was all right. He was a good messenger. One day I had an argument with the then minister of finance, who was not the present Minister of Justice-it was one of his predecessors-and the leader of the opposition, who was Lord Bennett. It was about some high officials who had been under the wing of Mr. Bennett for a time and who had succeeded in making themselves comfortable under the Liberal wing, under Liberal feathers. History repeats itself.


Mr. LOW:: Liberal tail-feathers?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I am not insistent on particulars. But one day I was up in my office and the boy came in-well, he was a man of twenty-eight or thirty years of age- bent in two, and he started to cry. I am not touched by the tears of a man except one who is in mourning, who has lost a parent or a very dear friend. I asked him, "What is the matter with you?" He said, "I will tell you. The day after you said to Mr. Bennett and Mr. Dunning that you would put both of them in the same bag"-of course, I did not add that I would drown them, because I would have kept my promise-"I was transferred from my job of messenger to cut ice downstairs, and the first day I worked at that it was pretty hard on me. I did not tell you when you recommended me that I suffered from rheumatism, but the day after that I bought another pair of gloves and tried to do my work. Now I am bent in two and I cannot go on like that. I am very sorry; it is impossible." I said, "Wait a minute". I went down to the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and said, "You are just a bunch of swine. The way you have acted with this man is a shame on all of you, and if you do not send him home to recuperate and give his job back to him I will rent the largest hall in Ottawa; I will have a radio, and I will denounce you all as a bunch of swine." He said, "Send the boy to me and I will fix him up." And he was fixed up. The year after, Charlie Dunning said to somebody, "Well, I tried to corner him and I did not succeed."
Human Rights

Well, I thought it was cowardly but it happened; it happened under this roof. No bill of rights! No bill of rights! I wonder if with a bill of rights like that it will be better than when I was insulted by Ralston, when he was falsifying my work. Who rose in my defence; who del ended the draftees against Ralston in English discussion; who defended the workers of the soil; who defended those engaged in industry, and who defended the member for Temiscouata? I was defended by my hon. friend the member for Peel; I was defended by my hon. friend the member for Saskatoon City; but I was fighting the fight of the common man without any support in the house most of the time. I had to put up my own fight alone and I suffered a lot, but I did not complain about it.
When I hear the discussion about a bill of rights, I think of most of the speeches that have been made, with few exceptions; and I mention among the exceptions the one that was made just before I spoke, the one that was made by the member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard) the one that was made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), because they were not in the moon when they spoke. They spoke about actual facts. How can we expect to rule the whole world when the leaders of the other countries pay no attention to Canada?
It reminds me of a story of the late Mr. Lapointe, at one time minister of justice. He was brought up in the country; he knew the [DOT]ways of living of the people, and he used to tell with great humour very fine stories that had a touch of philosophy. He had two friends in the county of Kamouraska. One of them was a client of mine. He was a notary public and his initials were T.M.T.-not T.N.T. He had a cousin there. He was not a notary public and his name was Wenceslas, and he used to be called Cariboo. When he spoke, people used to say "Boom, one cariboo; boom, boom, two cariboo." But this is of no importance whatever.
There was a day when it was a great honour to be on the same seat with a member of parliament. In those days there were carriages with two seats but four places. Wenceslas sat in the back where Mr. Lapointe was to sit, leaving, the front seat next to the driver to T.M.T. Then T.M.T. was quite indignant. He said, "Wenceslas, take your place. Sit in the front." Well, the story of Canada is not very different, and I am sorry about it. All the powers tell the duly accredited representatives of Canada, "Take your place, Canada; sit at the tail-end."
Now we are going to reform them. It is purely academic. I find this debate frivolous 
and I find it futile. I said that once before on another occasion. I find that nothing will come out of it except expressions of good will which lead nowhere. This house must reform itself. We must not simply speak phrases. We must first set an example of good will, understanding, and tolerance to others. When a member of parliament is speaking here, some hon. members say, "Time, time," or "Quack, quack."


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: "Quack" yourself.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I will tell my hon. friend that I will say that to him the next time he speaks and I shall be doing only as he has done. I have been most tolerant. I have not interrupted the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross). I have compassion for him. He shows the extent of his sincerity in supporting a bill of rights. There is no more intolerant man in this house than the hon. member for St. Paul's. He will support the bill of rights, and he will go to Toronto (St. Paul's) and say, "I am for the bill of rights." What rights? He will be unable to say, but he will be for that bill of rights.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Let the hon. member speak for himself, not for me.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member gets angry it will be a good thing, because he is never so eloquent as when he loses control of himself.
One matter to which we should all give thought is that of discontinuing making speeches which amount to nothing.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely, "Hear, hear." What will come out of the discussions of Friday and today? Will Uncle Joe Stalin, the Americans across the border and the Chinese be much concerned about the marvellous speeches which were made here on Friday and today?


Thomas John Bentley: We will send them a shipload of platitudes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know; perhaps they will make a different use of the paper which is sent to them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What were you saying about the debate in this house?


Jean-François Pouliot: I think my hon. friend is perfectly right when he speaks about platitudes, expressions of good will, being printed in the reports of these two sittings. We suffered a good deal. I remember one day when there was another chairman of the committee of the whole and when there was the assistant in Doctor Beauchesne's chair. My

Human Rights
case was clear. The chairman ruled in my favour, but a member of the cabinet winked and then he changed his ruling.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: He started a romance.


Jean-François Pouliot: He wanted me to apologize for saying that Ralston had put into my mouth words that I had never used. That was pretty tough, you know. And when I had to withdraw the expression "pompous" as applied to brass hats, it was also pretty tough.


An hon. MEMBER:: You bet.


Jean-François Pouliot: And it was the tougher because the request came from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). It is hard to realize how difficult it is for a private member to stand by his guns and be true to his convictions. even if he is wrong, provided that he is sincere.
As you know, sir, during the war exemptions were allowed for conscientious objectors, Mennonites, Hutterites, and Doukhobors; but after the farmers had been promised exemption from military service, they had1 to join the colours. A'ou remember the difficulty we had in trying to defend them just because there were some men in the army and in the department who thought that the duty of every Canadian was, as was stated in the house by the government, to join the colours. I am not anti-militarist any more than I am anti-British. But I find that it is a provocation of Russia to continue to consider her as a country which desires to wage war on Canada. I am not pro-Russian either. I am pro-Canadian. I am not any more pro-Russian than I am proBritish; and I am not anti-British either. But I consider Canada before England, Russia, France, China or any other country in the world. There was an investigation directed against the Russians, at the instigation of Igor Gouzenko. The evidence was obtained; the trials were very well prepared, and some of the accused people were found guilty. There were other arrests during the war. There was the arrest of Mr. Ohaloult, as well as of Mr. Drew. But proceedings against Mr. Drew were stopped. He did not undergo any trial, but Mr. Chaloult did. But the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who came to the defence of Mr. Drew-and quite rightly -did not say a word in defence of Mr. Chaloult who had won his trial in Montreal. I will tell my hon. friend that I do not believe in the civil liberties league. I think those who are in all those leagues are just imposters who exploit human credulity and who are ready to defend scoundrels at the expense of honeist men. Moreover I will tell my hon. friend1 and you, Mr. Speaker, that during the 83166-207
war very discreetly I looked after a bitter Tory journalist from Toronto, as well as a French journalist from Montreal. I telephoned the offices of the Prime Minister and several other ministers so that no charge was laid against them. The memoranda against those two journalists were drafted by one who is a former member of the press gallery and one who is actually in the press gallery, but when I asked for that memoranda at the beginning of the session I could not get it; it was secret. I should like to have shown the insincerity of a man who is enthusiastic about the civil liberties league, who does not understand the problems of French-Canadians, and who betrayed the press gallery during the war, when I successfully defended it.
That is something. I never would have spoken of it if this debate had not taken place; but we have that intelligentsia which is a curse to the country. I am going to speak at home on Sunday about the future of youth, and I will tell youth that universities are to a large extent the cause of the unrest that exists in the country today. Young men are no longer taught to work from the bottom of the ladder and to climb gradually to the top, as former generations did. Young men are taught in social science courses and economics courses that they know all, that they are supreme, that they have nothing to learn, that they are ready to teach the world; and afterwards they try to organize for themselves, their families and their friends some fine nests where they will be comfortable while doing nothing and getting large amounts of money at the expense of the taxpayers of this country.
We have a lot to learn, but we have to come back to fundamentals. We cannot live on friends; we cannot live on declarations of rights such as those we have heard from all parts of the house. What does it amount to? My hon. friend said it-"Platitudes." And we listen to that. Today hon. members were anxious to come to this important debate about the bill of rights. In the first place, the discussion in this committee will be the cause of a great loss of time for the members, and the report will amount to nothing.
Before I conclude, I want to come back to what I was about to say. What I said had to be said by me, but I have more to say. Why take Russia, and say it is an enemy country, that those at the Russian embassy are spies? It may be true; I do not deny it, but why say that only about Russia when we know very well that under the roof of the high commissioner for the United Kingdom there was a woman who was a well known communist, who was found guilty and sen-

War Exchange Conservation

tenced, who had been a pink communist since 1932? Why have two weights and two measures? How is it that members of parliament are such sophomores that they ignore the fact that, while ambassadors and consuls may call themselves observers, they are only spies de luxe. They are accepted. The trouble with Russia was that they were looking through the keyhole; they showed bad manners, but others are spying just the same. Up to the time Canada declared war on Japan and the Japanese ambassador and his family returned to that country, there was no nest of intrigue and spying like the city of Ottawa, and everyone knows that.
Well, sir, here we are. It is a difficult matter, and the question is not to make a fine speech that will carry the house. The question is to see about the future. When we hear about human rights, fundamental freedoms, the improvement of health, et cetera, et cetera, how is it that we have so'much money to give to other countries, that we can look after the children of other countries but cannot look after those in our own country who are invalids, unless they are seventy years old or are blind? It is extraordinary. We have a lot to do, but before reforming other countries let us reform ourselves. Let us come down to brass tacks; let us be realists; let us do something for Canada before running ourselves for the benefit of other countries who pay no attention to us. In that connection the only thing to do is to think of our own country. There is so little freedom of speech that I am sure some newspapers will criticize the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) tomorrow because he said he was a nationalist. They will say he is such a short-sighted man, such a narrow-minded individual to describe himself in that way. Is this a bill of rights? Is this respect for liberty? I am ready to respect the liberty of everybody. I fight hard; I do not start a fight, but I can defend myself all right. But this is not an infringement upon the liberty of others. I respect the liberty of all, but I also want my liberty and freedom to be respected by all, which must be the feeling of everybody. If it is possible to awaken the House of Commons to its own responsibility there is no finer body of men in Canada. Then we will be able to go places and do something.
On motion of Mr. Hansell the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 20, 1947