[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Sinnott.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I thought, Mr. Speaker, the house would like to know that in so far as the east coast is concerned, the strike of officer personnel of deepsea ships is over.
Over the week end there were negotiations between the parties concerned in which officials of the Department of Labour took part. These negotiations resulted in ironing out the main difficulties and all ships will be sailing from eastern ports today or tomorrow. There are one or two minor matters to be settled but it is expected they will be taken care of satisfactorily.
With regard to the Pacific coast, negotiations are continuing and I am hopeful that by tomorrow the strike, as far as that area also is concerned, will be ended.
The settlement with regard to wages and working conditions is on the basis of the recommendations of Mr. Justice D. A. McNiven, who was the conciliation commissioner, with the provision that the unions and the companies agree that there will be no discrimination in employment or prosecution by the companies against their officers who have been on strike or by the unions against officers who have sailed or been on articles on any ships during the dispute.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: I desire to lay on the table, Mr. Speaker, the following reports in English and in French: annual report of the Canadian National Railway System for the year ended December 31, 1947; annual report of the Canadian National (West Indies)
Steamships Limited for the year ended December 31, 1947; annual report of the Canadian National Railways Securities Trust for the year ended December 31, 1947. Copies of these reports are being distributed to hon. members this afternoon.
The auditor's report to parliament has been delayed in printing, but I hope to be able to table it shortly.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Lionel Chevrier: That the name of Mr. Winkler be substituted for that of Mr. Tucker on the special committee on veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Have any irrigation surveys been made in the Lomond-Retlaw-Enchant districts in Alberta? If so, what areas do these surveys cover ?
2.	Do any contracts or agreements exist between the dominion government and any person or persons respecting any irrigation project in these districts?
3.	Have any plans been made for work tc start on any irrigation project in these districts within the next year or so? If so, what aTe the details of these plans?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Not by dominion government.
2.	No.
3.	Yes; plans have been made subject to the execution of an agreement between the dominion of Canada, the province of Alberta and the Canada Land and Irrigation Company.
The plans involve the details, improvement and extension of existing canals and appurtenant works.


CENTRAL MECHANICAL DEPOT BUILDING, LONDON, ONT.
Mr. MANROSS:: 1.	What was the total cost to the government of C.M.D. buildings on Highbury avenue in London, Ontario?
Questions

2.	Are they for sale to industry?
3.	What is the annual maintenance cost?
4.	How many employees were there in the buildings in each year 1944, 1945, 1946 and 1947?
.5. What was annual payroll in each of these
years?


Mr. CLANTON:: 1.	$1,381,000.
2.	No.
3.	Average annual maintenance cost:
Light	$ 4,165
Heat	 6,956
Civilian maintenance, personnel		1,544
Repairs and upkeep	 15,000
Total	$ 27,665
4.
Year	Military	Civilian	Total1944	...	723	2 6	7491945	...	534	194	7281946	...	438	571	1,0091947	...	243	464	707
5.
Year	Military	Civilian	Total1944	..	.$779,538	60	$ 27,952	00	$	807,490	601945	...	577,328	76	187,054	39	764,383	151946	...	474,099	96	740,138	54	1,214,238	501947	...	264,401	01	683,655	12	948,056	13


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES-WINNIPEG AND MONTREAL OFFICES
Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	Have any head office departments of Trans-Canada Airlines been recently transferred from Winnipeg to Montreal?
2.	How many employees of the T.C.A. head office in Winnipeg, have been transferred to Montreal since January, 1947?
3.	What plans, if any, have T.C.A. made to transfer any portion of their head office from Winnipeg to Montreal, in the future?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	T.C.A.'s head office is, and has always been, in Montreal whereas the operating headquarters have been located in Winnipeg for the past several years.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ST. THOMAS SHOPS-REPAIR OF N.Y.C. ENGINES
Mr. COYLE:: 1.	Have the C.N.R. shops at St. Thomas been making any repairs on American New York Centra] engines of the J 1 type in the past
year ?
2.	If so, are they still doing this work?

3.	If not, when was the work stopped and for what reason was it discontinued?
4.	Has any demand come from the New York Central for continuance of this work?


Lionel Chevrier: I understand the hon. gentleman wishes to reword his question. If that is so perhaps he would agree to drop it and place another question on the order paper.


Mr. COYLE:: It can be dropped and I will reword it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


YUKON QUARTZ MINING ACT-SURVEYS BY DOMINION LAND SURVEYORS
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Has the government notified the recorded owners of mineral claims that in accordance with section 78 of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act they must have surveys made at their own expense by duly qualified dominion land surveyors within one year?
2.	If so, will the government reconsider the serious consequences to many small owners of mineral claims resulting from this action?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Yes; this is provided by the act.
2.	The matter has already been considered. On January 7, 1948, the minister authorized the mining recorders to issue the notices contemplated by section 78 of the act. At the same time arrangements were made to have a dominion land surveyor undertake the necessary base line surveys at government expense, and the mining recorders were advised that this dominion land surveyor would survey claims for claim holders at the actual cost of the work done on each claim.
As it became evident from correspondence that the situation was not thoroughly understood, the following circular letter is being sent by the mining recorder to all those to whom notices have been given under section 78:
The correspondence which has been received as a result of the notices sent to claim holders under section 78 of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act has been reported to the department and I have been instructed to furnish further information to all those to whom these notices have been sent, supplementing the information already given.
The necessity of a survey of mineral claims has been a fundamental requirement of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act from the beginning. The two-post staking system which is in effect in the Yukon Territory contemplates that there will be an early survey so that the boundary of each claim may be defined. This requirement ivas not enforced during the time when it was impossible to obtain the services of a surveyor. The net result of this leniency has been that those who wish to proceed with the development of the mineral resources of the territory are unable to ascertain the limits of the properties that can be secured either by purchase or staking.

Questions
Now that the services of dominion land surveyors are available it has been considered appropriate to require claim holders to have their claims surveyed. There is no intention of taking arbitrary action. If it is impossible to have a survey made, either because the surveyor cannot get around to it, or for good and sufficient reason the claim owner while developing his property is unable to pay the expense of the survey, then the circumstances will be considered by the minister on the representations of the claim holder.
The department is willing to do its part by improving the maps and assigning government surveyors to run the base lines. In order to assist claim holders the department is assigning a surveyor to make surveys of mineral claims. The claim holders who take advantage of this offer will be asked to make a deposit to cover the cost of the actual out of pocket expenses incidental to the survey of their claims. These expenses will not include the salary of the surveyor. It has been estimated that these charges will not exceed $200 per claim. This deposit of $200 should be made to the mining recorder, and a refund will be made should the cost be less than this amount.
It will be the responsibility of each claim holder either to have the survey of his claim made or to make the required deposit with the mining recorder. Those "who are unable to comply and who desire to establish a case for special consideration by reason of their bona fides as actual developers of the property they hold under entry should disclose the circumstances which in their opinion would justify the minister in not cancelling their claims.


LEASE OF BUILDING IN VICTORIA, B.C.
Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	Does the government lease a building known as 7in Fort street, Victoria. British Columbia?
2.	If so, for what purpose?
3.	Has it been advertised as a hotel?
4.	How many tenants, lodgers or guests were there in this building on April 1, 1948?
5.	How many of these are veterans?
C. What rentals, if any, are charged?
7.	Has there been any increase in the rentals since January 30, 1948? If so, what increase was authorized?
8.	Who are the managers of this property? Are they ex-servicemen?
9.	Are they employed by the government? If so. under what department and at what salaries?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	This building is leased by the government for operation under the home conversion plan to provide accommodation for Victoria residents. Building contains twenty-four suites and thirty-six single rooms.
3.	Yes.
4.	On April 1, 1948, there were 107 persons in residence at 710 Fort street, Victoria.
5.	Thirty-five of these are veterans.
6.	Single rooms rent for $7.50 to $10.50 weekly including cleaning service, linen, towels, etc., while apartment rentals are between $13.50 to $22.50 weekly with the same services.
7.	On March 1 single room and apartment rents at 710 Fort street were raised $1 per week to incoming tenants. No increase was made in the rents of tenants in possession at that time. In addition, there were some other adjustments in rentals for individual suites which were out of line with the rental structure for the rest of the project.
8.	The property is managed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on behalf of the government. Resident manageress is Mrs. W. E. Rayfuse, an employee of the Victoria office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
9.	No.


EMIGRATION-YUGOSLAVS
Mr. McCUAIG:: 1.	How many people of Yugoslav origin have emigrated from Canada back to Yugoslavia since 1945 to date?
2.	How many Canadian-born Yugoslavs emigrated from Canada to Yugoslavia during that period?
3.	What was the total value of goods, vehicles and implements taken with these people back to Yugoslavia?
Mr. MacIvINNON:
1.	Information not available.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-OPTOMETHISTS
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Was authority issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the employment of optometrists on the staffs of D.V.A. hospitals and institutions? If so, when?
2.	Have any optometrists been so employed?
3.	If so, where?
4.	If not, why were they not appointed?


Mr. GREGG:: 1.	Authority w-as issued for employment on a casual fee basis, but not for appointment to positions within the public service. April 22, 1947.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No need for services has arisen.


PUBLIC WORKS-FLAGS
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	How many flags were purchased by the Department of Public Works during the twrelve months ending March 31, 1948?
2.	What percentage of these were union jacks?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	1,857.
2.	10-77 per cent.
Questions


PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES TO VETERANS OP TWO WORLD WARS
Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Are the veterans of world war I receiving the same benefits and consideration as the veterans of world war II?
2.	If not, for what reasons?


Mr. GREGG:: 1.	Yes, except where the terms of the legislation applicable to them differs.
2.	A difference in terms of legislation.


POSTAL SERVICE IN ANTICOSTI ISLAND
Mr. DORION:: 1.	Since what year has there been a service for the conveyance of mails to and from Port Menier, Anticosti island?
2.	In what manner was such service operated up to 1947?
3.	What was the cost of the conveyance of mails from the mainland, on the north shore, to the Port Menier post office, on Anticosti island, prior to 1947?
4.	Has any change occurred in such service during the last few months? If so (a) by whom is the said service performed; (b) what is the cost of such service at present?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1. Departmental records indicate service in effect prior to 1906 but details are not available.
2.	By boat and air.
3.	Fiscal year 1946-47:
By boat (summer season)	$ 750 00
By air (winter season)	2,741 50
13,491 50
4.	Yes. As from the 10th February, 1948, Anticosti island has been served from Gaspe, P.Q.
(a)	Anticosti Shipping Company.
(b)	$3,000 per annum.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: What protection is offered the public by the Food and Drugs Act against filth and extraneous matter in foods?


Mr. MARTIN:: Section 4 paragraph (d) of the act states that a food shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of the act "if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance, whether manufactured or not, or if it is otherwise unfit for food".
Foods are examined in the department's food and drug laboratories for the defects noted in this paragraph of the act. If found defective they are refused entry into Canada or, if already on the domestic market, they

are not permitted to be sold for human consumption.



INCOME TAX-CORPORATIONS-FUNDS IN LIQUIDATION

Mr. FULTON:: What is the total amount of the funds of corporations in voluntary or compulsory liquidation. the distribution of which has been frozen pending the issuance of releases to the liquidator by the income tax branch?


Mr. WINTERS:: In the case of corporations in voluntary or compulsory liquidation, clearance certificates are issued to the corporation or trustees concerned upon payment of any outstanding tax liability but no statistical record is maintained by the taxation division as to the total amount of distributable surpluses in such cases.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. VIAU:: 1.	How many vacancies occurred in the various departments of the dominion government
(a)	during 1947; (b) since 1st January, 1948?
2.	How many competitions were advertised by the civil service commission for appointment to vacancies occurring in the various departments of the dominion government (a) during 1947; (b) since 1st January, 1948?
3.	How many applications were received for each competition (a) during 1947; (b) since 1st January, 1948?
4.	How many candidates were declared successful in each competition (a) during 1947;
(b)	since 1st January, 1048?
5.	How many of the successful candidates were appointed to vacancies which occurred (a) during 1947; (b) since 1st January, 1048?
6.	How many of the successful candidates receiving appointment were already in the employ of the dominion government (a) during 1947; (b) since 1st January, 1948?
7.	How many of the candidates appointed (a) served overseas; (b) in Canada only; (c) were civilians; (d) were bilingual?


PUBLIC BUILDINGS-MACLEOD CONSTITUENCY
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How many public buildings are owned by the government in the constituency of Macleod, and what is the value and location of each of these buildings?
2.	Does the dominion government pay any taxes on the above-mentioned properties? If so, what amounts are paid in each case and to whom ?


RESEARCH IN AGRICULTURE
Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: 1. How many persons are in the employ of the Department of Agriculture in each province?

Inquiries of the Ministry
2.	How many national research council employees, in each province, are performing research work in relation to agriculture?
3.	What is the total amount of salaries paid to the said employees, for each province?
4.	What is the amount of expenditure incurred for such research work, in addition to salaries?



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Is the Minister of Transport aware that the express rate on eggs for hatcheries from Yellow Grass, Milestone and Duval to Regina, nearby points, has been increased from 35 cents to 70 cents per crate of thirty dozen; and from Dafoe and Davidson to Regina, a slightly greater difference, from 35 cents to 75 cents a crate? Will the minister investigate the authority for the increases in these rates?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware of the situation to which the hon. member refers, but I am glad he sent me this notice. I have asked the board to investigate and report to me upon the matter.



SUBVENTIONS ON NOVA SCOTIA COAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, arising from the recent increase in freight rates. Is the government considering increasing the subventions paid on the movement of Nova Scotia coal to absorb the additional charges that will occur because of the freight rate increase ?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The subventions on coal are based on the amount necessary to equalize the price of Nova Scotia coal with the price of United States coal at certain points of delivery. That being so, the subventions will automatically be increased to take care of the additional freight rates.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Is it the intention of the Department of Veterans Affairs to close the Cornwallis veterans hospital for tubercular patients, Digby, Nova Scotia, and transfer the patients to Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, or elsewhere? If so,
why is such action being taken, and what is to be the date of closing Cornwallis hospital?
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): The hon. member kindly sent me advance notice of this question. The department does intend to close the Cornwallis veterans hospital for tuberculosis patients at Digby, Nova Scotia, in the near future and transfer the patients from this hospital to Camp Hill, Halifax. The action is being taken for the following reasons:
1.	To permit a closer liaison with the medical staff at Dalhousie Medical School and so assure a continuing high standard of adequate diagnostic treatment and service to the patients.
2.	To conform to the established policy of abandoning service hospitals which were taken over temporarily to cope with the peak load as soon as suitable alternative accommodation is available in our permanent treatment centres.
3.	Bed space is available at Camp Hill hospital and structural changes are well under way to adjust this accommodation and make it suitable for the care of patients suffering from tuberculosis.
4.	The concentration of our treatment facilities in Halifax not only assures the availability of better medical care, but allows for improved treatment at a considerable reduction in over-all cost.
The exact date of closing has not been set but will be determined by the completion of the structural changes to which I have referred. The prospective date will be some time in the late summer or early fall.



WORK OF THE COMMITTEE FOLLOWING EASTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the work of the committee on veterans affairs for this session completed? If not, why has there been no meeting of the committee since the Easter recess?
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): After consultation I believe it was decided to hold the next meeting tomorrow.



PETROLEUM PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weyburn):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, of which I have
Inquiries of the Ministry

sent him a copy. In view of the possibility that there may be gasoline rationing in Canada this year, as suggested in a news dispatch appearing in the Ottawa Journal of April 8, will the minister indicate what is Canada's position at present with regard to oil and gasoline supplies, and state whether or not rationing this year is contemplated?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose there is always the possibility that gasoline rationing will become necessary, but I know of no circumstance this year which makes it any more likely than last year or the year before. We are just approaching the season when stocks for the winter normally move into Canada. The government is taking every precaution to see that nothing interferes with the normal movement; and at the moment I do not anticipate the need for gasoline rationing next winter.



CORPS OF FIRE FIGHTERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I did not have time to give him notice, since it arises from a telegram recently received. In view of the desire of many hon. members to have the Canadian corps of fire fighters brought within the scope of veterans legislation, will the minister consider holding in abeyance the payment of income tax by members of this corps on money earned in that service, until the special committee on veterans affairs has reported on the matter?


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: Not having had notice of the question I can only say the matter will be considered and an answer made at a later date.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister based on reports appearing in the press last week. Is there to be held this year, and if so when, a new dominion-provincial conference on old age pensions and other social security matters?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I regret that I am unable

to give my hon. friend an answer to that question. I cannot say whether or not there will be a conference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it under consideration?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I suppose everything is under consideration.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Better not spread yourself too thin.



EUROPEAN RECOVERY PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. ROSS THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question, notice of which I have sent him. Is the minister yet in a position to tell the house what effect the passing of the European recovery program by the United States will have on Canada's shortage of United States dollars? Will the additional U.S. dollars made available permit any early easing of the emergency regulations?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of his question, and I can give him this answer.
The adoption of the European recovery program by the United States should enable Canada to continue to ship to Europe the large volume of exports which we have been sending there and which the European countries need for their recovery.
It is still too early to say what the effect of the program will be on Canada's dollar shortage. I do not expect it will permit any early easing of the emergency import restrictions. On the other hand, I wish to emphasize that if the European recovery program had not been adopted, the Canadian dollar difficulties would have been greatly intensified.
Many of the details of our relationships with the European recovery program are still under discussion. I hope to be able before long to give the house a complete statement on our position when a number of matters now under discussion have become clarified.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley (for the Prime Minister) for the appointment of a joint committee of both houses of parliament

Human Rights
on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before the -adjournment on Friday evening I had moved an amendment with a view to having determined by the supreme court the question of the jurisdiction of the federal authority in the field of civil liberties. I hope, sir, the government will see fit to accept my suggestion, which I believe will go a long way toward determining once for all this important question, to which in 1935 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself made reference. Incidentally, just as a matter of interest, I have found in the course of reading that in 1832 the grandfather of the Prime Minister made a special trip to England for the purpose of placing before the imperial government the question of the preservation of civil liberties in Canada.
In his speech the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) referred to an article written by Doctor Humphrey, secretary of the committee on human rights. I should like to refer to another article written by the same gentleman on the subject of the international protection of human rights. It appears in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences for January, 1948. By way of indicating the importance of an international bill of rights in which through the united nations Canada could participate and to which she could contribute, I should like to quote briefly from that article. Doctor Humphrey says this:
It is probably correct to say that there has been more public interest in the work of the commission on human rights and its various subsidiaries than in the activities of any other organ of the united nations, with the exception of the security council, although discussions in the human rights commission have seldom hit the headlines.
It goes on to indicate why the international committee has been of such importance. It states that one reason, of course, is the personality of its chairman, Mrs. Franklin Roosevelt, and that another is the realization on the part of the public of the important issues at stake. The article continues:
Not only did the peoples of the world know that world war II had been fought for human rights; they knew that the denial of human rights by certain countries had been a contributing cause of the war.
Then he uses these words:
It is significant and appropriate that this victory of the common man, this victory of private individuals, should be a victory in the age-long struggle for the definition and establishment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I would bring that to the attention of the minister who, when he spoke the other night, made it evident that the government of this country has displayed but little interest in this important matter. Indeed an examination of the records of the united nations committee shows that all other democratic countries have made recommendations to this committee. The United States made recommendations, and the United Kingdom made recommendations in great detail, setting forth the necessity for the preservation of fundamental freedoms, as well as the sanctions that should apply.
In view of the great interest, as Doctor Humphrey says, that is being shown- throughout the world in fundamental freedoms, and the need1 for serious consideration of the subject in this country, I suggest that there be placed on Hansard the draft international declaration of human rights as well as the draft covenant. When the suggestion was made the other evening by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) the minister said that this material was too long for inclusion in Hansard. Sir, this is a declaration and covenant about which the people of this country generally know very little. I think it should appear in Hansard and thus be made available to all.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I suggest that Votes and Proceedings would be a better place for it than Hansard. I would have no objection to placing it there.


John George Diefenbaker: That would be suitable. It should be available to every member of the house.
There are some sections which have been accepted by the committee consisting of representatives of eighteen countries. Indeed practically the only objections to many of the clauses have been from countries which are communist or under the curtain of communism.
Let me refer to three or four pertinent international human rights which this declaration would1 protect, not only internationally but also in the various nations subscribing to them. I read these in the light of some of the abrogations of civil liberties which have taken place in Canada within the last few years. These particular declarations, sir, represent the consensus of many democratic nations throughout the world; n-o communist nation has yet given any indication as to its views, although they voted against its acceptance. Here are a few articles which are regarded as of sufficient importance internationally, designed to lay the foundation for the prevention of war:
Article 3 states:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without dis-
Human Rights

tinction of any kind, such as race (which includes colour), sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, property status or national or social origin.
And article 5:
No one shall be deprived of his personal liberty or kept in custody except dn eases prescribed by law and after due process.
This is particularly significant:
Everyone placed under arrest or detention shall have the right to immediate judicial determination of the legality of any detention to which he may be subject, and to trial within a reasonable time, or to release.
This section means that nations will not permit the denial of habeas corpus.
Here is another section which is of interest in view of some of the things which have happened in Canada in the last few years, particularly since the war. I quote:
Subject to any general law not contrary to the purposes and principles of the united nations charter and adopted for specific reasons of security or in general interest there shall be liberty of movement and free choice of residence within the border of each state.
There is a further one, article 16:
Individual freedom of thought and conscience to hold and change beliefs is an absolute and sacred right.
Provision is made also for the drafting of an international covenant, and it provides:
Every state, party hereto, undertakes to ensure:	(b) that such laws, respecting these
human rights and fundamental freedoms, conform with the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
(c)	that any person whose rights or freedoms are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
Then:
No person shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.
How often I have said in this house that when the right to be represented by counsel is taken away, law returns to the middle ages. All these nations have agreed to this:
In the determination of any criminal charge against him or of any of his civil rights or obligations every person is entitled to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal and to the aid of a qualified representative of his own choice.
Then in regard to freedom of religion, every person shall have the right to freedom of religion, conscience and belief. The only limitations on that freedom shall be such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public order and welfare, morals and the rights of freedom of others.
In the event that one's fundamental freedoms have been interfered with, he should

have the right of recourse. That is why I ask that there be an amendment to the Supreme Court of Canada Act to the end that anyone in any province in Canada whose fundamental freedoms are interfered with shall have the right of determination of his rights before the Supreme Court of Canada.
My right hon. friend referred to the constitutional division between the provinces and the dominion. I should like to refer to one case which is the only one which has been before the Supreme Court of Canada in reference to the question of fundamental freedoms. There are two points of view. Some say that the right of the provinces to abrogate and interfere with the fundamental freedoms is inherent in the British North America Act, although the preamble to that act states that our constitution shall be similar to that of the United Kingdom. Those who contend that these rights rest in the provinces aver that we in this country must be a balkanized Canada whereby an individual may enjoy certain fundamental rights in one province while in another they may be denied. It is that question of legislative jurisdiction that I am asking the government of this country to submit to the supreme court. If it is the law, then it denies to the individual that Canadian citizenship which should be the result of the measure introduced by the Prime Minister in 1944. To say that in one part of Canada a Canadian may enjoy freedom of religion and of speech and of association, all those great and abiding freedoms, and that in another province a Canadian may not enjoy them, is a denial of the possibility that we shall ever build a united Canada on the basis of equality of the individual before the law in all parts of the country.
A reference was made to the supreme court with respect to an Alberta statute of 1938, as reported in the Canadian Supreme Court Reports of that year. I should like to quote from the judgments of Chief Justice Duff and Mr. Justice Cannon, which indicate that while property and civil rights are a matter for the provinces, the preservation of abiding freedoms is a matter for the parliament of Canada. The judgment of Chief Justice Duff is to be found on page 133. It will be remembered that the Alberta legislature passed' a law that denied the freedom of the press in that province.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: That is absolutely false. I challenge the hon. member. The hon. member has no right to make remarks of that sort to this house without their being challenged.

Human Rights


John George Diefenbaker: There cannot be any controversy on that. I point out that the judgment is as follows:
The right of public discussion is, of course, subject to legal restrictions; those based upon considerations of decency and public order, and others conceived for the protection of various private and public interests with which, for example, the laws of defamation and sedition are concerned.
And further down:
We do not doubt that (in addition to the power of disallowance vested in the governor general) the parliament of Canada possesses authority to legislate for the protection of this right.
I would refer to page 134, where the chief justice points out that the freedom of the press, the right freely to express itself, is a right with which no province can interfere.


Mr. JAQUES:: It does not exist anyway.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not in an argumentative mood today; I am simply placing this on the record and doing it as dispassionately as I can. I hope my hon. friend will permit me to continue. On pages 145 and 146 appears the judgment of Mr. Justice Cannon, which reads:
Under the British system, which is ours, no political party can erect a prohibitory barrier to prevent the electors from getting information concerning the policy of the government. Freedom of discussion is essential to enlighten public opinion in a democratic state; it cannot be curtailed without affecting the right of the people to be informed through sources independent of the government concerning matters of public interest.
Then there are these significant, words, which have never been departed from or derogated from since 1938, by the Supreme Court:
No province lias the power to reduce in that province the political rights of its citizens as compared with those enjoyed by the citizens of other provinces of Canada.
What that means is that no province may within the ambit of property and civil rights interfere with freedom of religion or freedom of speech or freedom of the press by provincial legislation which would deny the maintenance of those freedoms. I suggest that in view of this authority of the supreme court, something should be done by this parliament to grant to the individual the right of appeal to the supreme court when his fundamental freedoms have been interfered with in any way. That case came before the supreme court, not as a result of an appeal by an individual, but on a submission by the governor in council.
The position regarding civil liberty is this. If any province can by the exercise, or by
the subterfuge of the exercise, of its licensing authority under municipal law, interfere with fundamental freedoms, and there is no recourse to the courts, the individual so interfered with, however great his freedoms may appear to be, in fact does not possess those freedoms. If being a Canadian implies the possession of fundamental and traditional freedoms, no citizen of this country should be denied the opportunity of asserting his freedoms in the courts.
With those who say that the dominion parliament has no power to pass a bill of rights I do not agree; but let us accept that for a moment. The first thing, then, that the parliament should do is to equalize the rights of Canadians everywhere in Canada, so that they can go to the foot of the throne, to the Supreme Court of Canada, and, if they will, to the privy council, when their rights have been abrogated.
If a municipal authority has the right by licensing, by imposing a licence fee, to deny the privilege of practising one's religion it then can do indirectly what it cannot do directly. I suggest to the Prime Minister as the culminating act of his career that he give to Canadians everywhere the assurance of full rights of equality in Canadian citizenship which was placed on the statute book by his government, by amending the Supreme Court Act to give the individual the right to the preservation and maintenance of his freedoms against provincial intrusion wherever it occurs.


Mr. POULIOT:: What intrusion?


John George Diefenbaker: There is any imaginable number.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member would specifically mention one, it would be more illuminating.


John George Diefenbaker: I will point out what happened in the United States, where the preservation of the right of freedoms was maintained by the supreme court of that country, in Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, 319 United States Reports, 103-


Jean-François Pouliot: But we have not been annexed yet.


John George Diefenbaker: What my hon. friend says is true, although there are many who say we are a satellite. But I am not dealing with that phase this afternoon. I am dealing with interference with the individual's rights and with the necessity of an amendment to the Supreme Court Act to prevent in any provincial authority or any emanation of a provincial authority the exercise of the right to
Human Rights

do by indirect means what cannot be done directly. In that case Mr. Justice Murphy of the United States supreme court used these words:
It is wise to remember that the taxing and licensing power is a dangerous and potent weapon which, in the hands of unscrupulous or bigoted men, could be used to suppress freedoms and destroy religion unless it is kept within appropriate bounds.
If being a Canadian anywhere in Canada implies equality and the possession of those traditional freedoms, then let us grant the individual the right to preserve his freedoms by having an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I pass on to the next phase, and it has to do with the international aspect of the matter. I cannot understand, sir, why it is that sor little interest has been shown by the government of this country in submitting suggestions for an international bill of rights. Over a period of two years no such recommendations have emanated from Canada. The government knew in January last what were the terms of an international bill of rights. The united nations committee forwarded to the government the draft terms in detail, and it has remained under cover all through February, March and April. It could have been tabled in the house in order to permit of consideration and discussion, but like so many other matters connected with our foreign affairs it has had to remain the secret of the government until now. That committee met. We had no representative there from Canada. The secretary was a Canadian. The committee drafted this bill of rights in two documents, a declaration and a convention.


James Lorimer Ilsley: How can my hon. friend say it was a secret in the bosom of the government when it was published to the whole world?


John George Diefenbaker: I was sent to the governments of the various countries, and sent to Canada, but if it was not a secret it has been kept under wraps and not tabled in parliament since January last.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It has received publication here.


John George Diefenbaker: In a publication in the month of March, 1948.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was available long before then.


John George Diefenbaker: Available to whom and by whom? Not to parliament or in parliament. It is against this secrecy in connection with our foreign affairs in general that I protest.

There is a convention and a declaration; a declaration that will merely be a statement of the pious idealism of the various countries, and a convention declaring a number of rights which the several states making up the united nations will be required to enforce. When it is ratified by a two-thirds majority it will be legally binding on each state when ratified by that state. My right hon. friend indicated that there is no rush. He admitted that this matter was supposed to be considered by the various nations within the united nations by April 3, 1948, and parliament did not get it until the 8th or 9th of April. It was to be considered by the various countries and suggestions were to be made by them. Now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) suggests that we do not rush the matter, which was supposed to be dealt with next fall, but that we delay it again. Mrs. Roosevelt has written an article on the subject in the April 1948 issue of Foreign Affairs, wherein she emphasizes the necessity of action now, action before the united nations ceases to function, as it is ceasing to function in parts of the world. She indicates that the one hope for mankind is that they get together and arrive at a standard in connection with the maintenance of human rights, without which there cannot be peace.
The declaration will be merely a declaration of hope. The convention will be a declaration of civil liberties binding on the nations when accepted by them.


Jean-François Pouliot: It binds no one. It binds only the hon. member for Lake Centre. That declaration binds no one else.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently my hon. friend, usually so well informed, has not read this. He has not had an opportunity because it is just now to be tabled. Canada's parliament and Canada generally should know what is the attitude of the Canadian government with respect to an international bill of rights. We have never yet been able to find it out. The United States took so great an interest in this matter that its state department sent out letters to 350 private organizations in the United States asking for their opinions and suggestions. The state department has publicly stated its appreciation of the suggestions given as the result of the request of the government. Canada has a position on the security council of the united nations; Canada is on the atomic control board; Canada has seats here and there; but in a matter that every one of the united nations representatives in San Francisco indicated was upon the conscience of mankind and should be epito-

Human Rights
mized in the form of a declaration, Canada does nothing. All it did was to wait while the committee had sat for a period, off and on, and at the end of three months concluded its recommendations, terminated its sittings, and agreed to meet again on May 8 or 9 of this year after further recommendations on the draft had been secured by the several nations. It does indicate, sir, if not a fear on the part of the government to face this question, at least an apathy, which, according to Doctor Humphrey, whom the minister quoted as an authority on the subject, is not to be found among the other nations who are interested in the preservation of the united nations.
I ask the minister this: has parliament not the right to know whether Canada is to be bound by the convention? Has it taken up with the provinces the question as to the degree to which correlative and complementary legislation will be passed? If not, Canada will be in the position of being not in the vanguard but in the rearguard of the march on the part of the nations of the world to these better things conducive of international peace.
I come next to the question of freedom of the press. This is a subject which has been before the people of Canada in very recent days. The preservation above all things of that freedom is so fundamental that without its preservation, parliament cannot function or democracy operate in the interest of the people. Now that a decision has been arrived at, the minister should give early attention to what I suggested some weeks ago, namely, amending section 888 of the criminal code so that never again will publishers, writers or authors be subject to being taken from one end of Canada to the other at the whim or desire of any group.
All along the road mankind has had to fight for freedom of the press as for other freedoms. Freedom of the press was first established in 1771 in the John Wilkes case. In the diastole and systole of history, the freedom of the press, though diminished from time to time, has been maintained in the main. It is for that reason that one of the chief committees set up by the united nations committee on human rights was the committee on freedom of the press. That committee has just reported. Canada had representatives on the committee, which met in Geneva. Free discussion is fundamental for the preservation of the principles for which we stand. Experience shows that man will speak the things he will within the law, regardless of the punishment that may be levied against him for so doing. Preservation of our freedoms lies in the right of every man under law to express
his point of view, limited only by sedition, blasphemy and libel. When I hear people talking about repression and denying a man the right to think the things he will under law, I am amazed. They believe that all you have to do to prevent the spread of false philosophies is to bring in laws that will deny the right to free speech. In doing so they deny the preservation of the thing that by repression they believe they are preserving. The only effective answer to the propagation of false philosophies is to assure to every citizen information on what are the abiding principles of freedom. They will recognize their superiority over those false doctrines, those godless doctrines, those doctrines that would destroy the relationship between a man and his God and the sacredness of his personality.


Jean-François Pouliot: What false doctrines?


John George Diefenbaker: I speak now of the doctrine of communism.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will you please enumerate?


John George Diefenbaker: I speak of the doctrine of communism; I hope I have my hon. friend's agreement. The freedom to destroy false doctrines is to have the right to speak against them. When I hear people say how they would control false doctrines I say that we need in this country those who will exercise the right to freedom of speech and show our people what freedom means, what are its abiding principles and its superiority over doctrines which result in the blackout of freedom and the maintenance of tyranny everywhere in the world.
Yesterday I came on a quotation from a speech which was delivered in the British House of Commons a hundred and fifty years ago. It is now repeated in the declaration on freedom of the press made a few days ago by the thirty nations meeting in Geneva. One hundred and fifty years ago Sheridan used these words:
Give me but the liberty of the press and I will concede to the government a corrupt and servile House of Commons. I "will give ministers the full swing of the patronage of office. I will give them a whole host of ministerial influence. I will give all the power that can be conferred to purchase submission and overawe resistance. And yet armed with the liberty of the press I will go forth to meet them undismayed. I will attack the mighty fabric government has reared with that mightier engine. I will shake down from its heights corruption and bury it beneath the ruins of the abuses it was meant to shelter.
What have we done in this nation with regard to that committee and the maintenance of the freedom of the press? Thirty-five nations were represented on the committee. Five of them voted against the preservation of
Human Rights

the freedom of the press. Those five consisted of the U.S.S.R. and its satellite nations, the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia. The thirty nations agreed that we must preserve these freedoms, and the greatest of these, to assure the penetration of the iron curtain, is the freedom to distribute news everywhere in the world without regard to country or opposition in any country. They said:
Freedom of information carries the right to gather, transmit and disseminate news anywhere. Freedom of information depends for its validity on the availability and diversity of sources of news and opinion.
Then the committee set out the responsibilities and the duties of the press. It says this:
The press has a moral obligation to seek the truth and report the facts, thereby contributing to a solution of the world's problems.
If the minister is to be the chairman of this
committee I should like him to bring before it representatives who have attended on behalf of Canada at this press gathering in Geneva, to the end that we in this country will have presented to our people something of the appeal that was made to these men as to the necessity of preserving as a federal responsibility freedom of the press everywhere in this country.
There are some who contend that when yqu speak of freedom in the world today you speak of an anachronism. By freedom do you mean the absence of law? Do you imply that freedom is the absence of direction? Those things are not freedom. Some there are in our own country who fear freedom. Others there are who believe they should have the freedom to do the thing they desire to do, but that someone else should be denied that same right under the law. To me freedom means the recognition of my right as a person within the state to equality under the law; and my right to the maintenance of fundamental freedoms which are our heritage. That heritage can be preserved only when there are rules which require the other person, in my interests and in his, to keep within the rules. It implies that each must be restricted by the existence of equal rights for others.
Equality for all has not been characteristic of some of the actions of this government during the years since the war. I am trying to keep away from any suggestion of political considerations in this discussion. But I say- and I do so without fear of there being anyone who will seriously deny it-that within the last two or three years in our country there has been an unnecessary continuance of invasions of the fundamental freedoms belonging to our

people. In 1932 the Prime Minister himself summarized the danger. Speaking in this house, he warned the country of the dangers of arbitrary authority. These words I bring to his attention and to that of his government today:
Arbitrary authority helps breed arbitrary authority. The enjoyment of a certain amount of absolute power creates the appetite for more power in the way of absolute power and finally absolutism knows no bounds.
This government was in power during the second world war. All of us were willing to surrender rights which were fundamental, in the greater interest of the survival and preservation of the state. But, with the conclusion of the war, in too many cases the government has continued to abrogate our rights, no doubt soothed by the fact that in the days of war we submitted willingly and voluntarily. When I observe the actions of some of the ministers in the cabinet I ask myself if these men are engaged in a competition among themselves for absolute power. Some show a greed for power. Some show that they are afflicted with the violence of unrestrained authority outside the law. I refer only to what happened recently when the imposition of taxes in our country was announced by radio speech. No one denied that it was an abrogation of the principles of Magna Carta. The minister could not do it. Following Magna Carta, because of the inclination on the part of some people to depart from its principles, a curse was placed on all who departed from them. According to the author I read, no king's minister, no cabinet minister, no adviser or person who departed from those principles would ever be able to remove himself from the curse that was pronounced, namely, that he would be driven out of power or restrained by the people. I shall read what that curse was. It condemned every official of the state sworn to uphold it, and-
"All those that by word, deed or counsel-in any point, break or undo" its provisions or who "in any manner" procure, counsel or any way assent to resist or break them or "to go about it, by word or deed, openly or secretly, by any manner of pretence or colour."
Some people say: You have Magna Carta; what more do you want? The great principles of Magna Carta are abiding, permanent, eternal. What right has any individual in this country, if the federal government decides to do away with his right to appeal to the courts to have its principles preserved for him? In connection with the imposition of taxation outside of parliament, John Hampden in 1628 was approached by the representatives of the king who said, "Well, forget about it;

Human Rights
after all, it is just one departure. Pay it up." His answer was, "That I dare not do, for I fear to draw upon myself the curse in Magna Carta." What Hampden remembered in 1628 was apparently forgotten by the government of Canada in 1947. Why do we need a bill of rights in this country? I am not going to quote to you what the papers that do not support the government have to say; I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to what the Winnipeg Free Press said as late as February 26, 1948:
The remedy,-
It refers to invasions by this government of the rights of individuals that have continued since the war.
-in good part at least, lies with the dominion parliament and some action is being taken.
Then it points out the necessity for action.
No civil liberties legislation exists in Canada to protect the fundamental freedoms of Canadians. In the past it has been assumed that the liberal tradition and the vigilance of an alert electorate would suffice to protect them, but recent experience shows that this is only too obviously not so. Within a decade or a little more, serious inroads have been made upon the rights of Canadians.
That is in 1948, written in a paper which generally gives support to the government. It points out the necessity for a bill of rights which will assure not only the maintenance of fundamental freedoms but the right of the individual, under law, to recourse to the courts in order to have those rights preserved.
In England within the last few months an anomaly has been removed; the crown may now be sued in the courts of the land just as an individual may be sued in those courts. In this country the federal government is in business on a scale not exceeded by Great Britain. I am not going to enumerate the businesses it is in. No citizen has any right to recourse to the courts against the crown, except by leave of the crown. I suggest that the time has come to remove this anomaly from the law in our country. I go further and point out the unfairness which was exhibited by this government two years ago when a man in western Canada, Mr. Oatway, instituted an action against the wheat board for certain rights he contended were his. He got into the courts and went as far as the court of appeal of Manitoba; he had the right to take proceedings, but what did this government do? When he decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada this government, which asserts that it believes in fundamental freedoms, had an order in council passed denying him the right to appeal to that court, and also denying him the right ever to have commenced the action he legally started. I say, sir, that- is a serious matter.
It indicates that some members of this government believe they and those under them are above the law. This is the sort of thing that parliament can and should correct. You may ask whether this is the situation only in Canada. It is not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would not the hon. member consider that the tying up of the distribution of scores of millions of dollars to the farmers, which would have resulted if that matter had gone on, was something that should be considered?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, sir, that is exactly the point I want to make. Whenever this government infringes upon fundamental freedoms it says, in effect, that you have the right but in the interests of the state we are denying you the right we state you have. That principle of ex post facto legislation is denied in the united nations draft. It is a most dangerous form of legislation, to come along after the event and by law deny the individual his right in court.
I want to read now what the Marquess of Reading said when he introduced the bill of rights in the British House of Lords in 1947. He pointed out these continuing invasions which are taking place, with government divesting itself of control by parliament, and infringing upon the rights of the individual beyond what is necessary for the preservation of the state. At page 763 of the House of Lords Hansard the Marquess of Reading dealt with this matter in these words.


Jean-François Pouliot: What date, please?


John George Diefenbaker: It was in February of 1947. I have not the date here, but it appears at page 763 of the House of Lords debates:
Personal freedom had for so long been the current coin of life in this country that we had been apt perhaps to forget that currency may be slowly and stealthily withdrawn from circulation, that coinage may be debased without any very evident outward signs, and it may even be deliberately counterfeited without immediate detection.
It is not part of my case today to allege any malign conspiracy on the part of anyone deliberately to attempt to overthrow the liberties of the subject. The process has been gradual, stealthy, haphazard, almost inadvertent, but unfortunately both insidious and menacing in its cumulative effect. The pace and the magnitude of events have in recent years been filched and liberties purloined almost without the notice of parliament or the knowledge of the public.
The earlier parts of the bill he introduced- which incidentally passed the House of Lords-
-are, therefore, directed to the remedying of two evil tendencies; the growing usurpation by
Human Rights

the executive powers of parliament, and the increasing exclusion of the courts of law from what is perhaps their supreme function-protecting the individual citizens against the excessive and illegitimate encroachments and abuses of authority. These tendencies are, unhappily, no new feature of our life. They have now been nurtured upon the special conditions of emergency obtaining throughout two long, arduous and fluctuating wars.
What do I suggest should be done? My suggestion, sir, is that in view of the importance of civil liberties and their preservation, there be set up a standing committee of the House of Commons on civil rights. The recommendation has been made in the British parliament-and while it has not been accepted yet I understand it was very favourably received-that a committee be set up which meet continually and have for its responsibility the examination of all orders in council, statutes and the like that deny the individual the right of recourse to the courts. Such a clearing house committee would be of great benefit. It would reveal to the people as a whole the trend that is taking place, and would create a well informed social concern. That committee would be a vigilant upholder, through publicity, of the rights of the individual. Recently when the Prime Minister moved the appointment of the prices committee he said one of its great functions would be publicity. Surely if in economic matters publicity will cure evil, in the matter of one's freedoms it would also be an advantage if a committee such as this were set up; for, sir, as Mr. Justice Douglas of the United States supreme court said in a recent judgment:
The extent of a community's respect of the human rights of all its citizens is in fact the measure of its progress in civilization.
This committee would correlate information regarding interferences with civil liberties as they take place. It would give publicity thereto. It would make Canadians everywhere cognizant and constantly aware of invasions of our basic liberties and of the inadequacy, in many cases, of our present laws in guarding those liberties. It would make Canadians freedom-conscious, for this committee would provide parliament with a watching brief over freedom regardless of what may be the distribution of powers under the British North America Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was all that said by Mr. Justice Douglas?


John George Diefenbaker: No. I ended the quotation while you were talking to the minister.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.J


Jean-François Pouliot: I asked him if the Douglas was the American.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; anyway it was then I ended the quotation.


Jean-François Pouliot: You did not tell us whether or not he was a Yankee.


John George Diefenbaker: I now quote in that connection from a speech delivered by Lord Chesterfield in the British parliament many years ago-


Jean-François Pouliot: Quote Canadians; quote Tim Buck, the Witnesses of Jehovah and all the others.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot understand my hon. friend's interruptions at all. Usually they are intelligent. Lord Chesterfield used these words:
Let us consider that arbitrary power has seldom or never been introduced into any country at once. It must be introduced by slow degrees, and as it were step by step, lest the people should see its approach.
That is to like effect to what the Prime Minister said in 1932.
Next I suggest that we set up in the Department of Justice a civil liberties division to which every citizen in the land will be able to turn when his civil liberties are interfered with. A similar committee has been set up in the United States. It was established in 1939, and has been a reservoir into which people in all parts of the United States have poured their complaints when their rights have been interfered with.
I have already referred to the necessity for recourse to the courts. Let me say to the minister, now that the emergency following the war is officially over, that I should like to see something done about removing from the statutes of the country provisions which deny the individual his right to the courts. Consider for instance the act creating the foreign exchange control board. No matter how illegally, how unjustifiably, or how tyrannically a representative of that board may act, while the right to go to the courts is not denied, the right to recover damages is limited to nominal damages which is a dollar, with no costs. That, I say, is a dangerous interference with the rights of the individual. State rights have their place, but the rights of the individual should be paramount as against officials operating under state authority.
I do not wish to weary the house with further references to the necessity for a bill of rights. However one of the latest editorials on the

Human Rights
subject is to be found in the Family Herald and Weekly Star of March 10, 1948, in which it is stated:
The dominion parliament, or rather, any majority in the dominion parliament, has far greater power over the individual citizen than has the United States congress. It is therefore reasonable that we should be particularly wary about granting unlimited powers to a cabinet, which, if it has a majority in parliament, can do anything-
And the word "anything" is in italics-
-to any citizen, and can neither be called to account in the courts, nor blocked by any obstacle to its ambition, which it could not remove at will.
What have been some of the invasions lately? Well, sir, the first, is the doctrine of emergency which is being used by this government to circumvent constitutional balances by overriding provincial rights.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: My right hon. friend laughs.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend is now getting himself on both sides of this provincial rights controversy.


John George Diefenbaker: No. I deny the right of the central authority to invade. So far as private rights and fundamental freedoms are concerned, let us find out once for all who has the power, by submitting the matter to the supreme court.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have carried the emergency doctrine to the point if at any time the cabinet says there is an emergency, they contend that the power vests in the federal authority to get around the constitution and interfere with provincial rights.
Secondly, there has been established the doctrine that our constitution can be amended by a simple address on the part of a majority in the House of Commons and the Senate, and without consultation with the provinces. This is a further indication of the centralizing influence that seems to control this government in its attitude to the constitution of our country.
The action of the government in refusing to reconvene the dominion provincial conference unless all the provinces are prepared to accept terms proposed by the federal government in advance is a denial of the spirit of confederation, which was based upon co-operation.
There should be a declaration that never again will statutes passed by parliament be amended by orders in council and made inoperative by the governor in council. I give 5849-182
an example: A couple of years ago the government, with its majority, forced through civil airways legislation by which no railway transportation company was permitted to operate civil airways after a certain date. I did not support the government in that; but it put the legislation through. That legislation became inconvenient to the government. What did the government do? They simply had an order in council passed so that that which parliament had declared for in a statute should be postponed in its operation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was not even an order in council. It was just a minute of the cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member points out, and correctly, that it was not even an order in council. It was just a minute-a statement to the effect that the statute was no longer in operation.
The same condition prevails under the Patent Act-
Then there is the Foreign Exchange Control Act, to which I have already referred, and also the Income War Tax Act, denying a person the right of recourse to the courts, in certain particulars, and giving the minister powers that no minister should ask, much less receive, from parliament.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I ask a question?


John George Diefenbaker: The powers given under the Income War Tax Act were summarized recently in an issue of Toronto Saturday Night. Powers are given under the statute whereby the minister has the right to discriminate between individuals, and the decision is not subject to challenge in the courts.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does the hon. member disapprove of the principle of workmen's compensation legislation in the provinces under which an employee cannot go to the courts?


John George Diefenbaker: That legislation has prevailed for a very considerable period of time in all the provinces. The reason for it is that most labour men take the view that if a matter were carried to the courts it would cost money. That was the argument.


Humphrey Mitchell: It was their experience.


John George Diefenbaker: They are willing to accept that in connection with workmen's compensation. I am referring to federal legislation in connection with income tax. I ask
Human Rights

this:	Is there any citizen of this country
who ever told the government that it was acceptable in practice to have legislation which denies a person the right to appeal to the courts against a minister's discretion so far as income tax is concerned?
Then, as to workmen's compensation legislation-


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will answer that. My recollection is that the representations were that they wanted to go to other than the exchequer court. They wanted a board set up. That was the suggestion they made-that there be a board set up to which they could go, instead of to the courts.


John George Diefenbaker: My right hon. friend realizes that these points are worthy ones, and he is now trying to exculpate himself by saying that some representations were made in which a board was asked for.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member asked the question. He asked whether the minister or the government would say that anybody did not complain. I answered the question; that is all.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with workmen's compensation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, in connection with
income tax.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. If the minister says he had that complaint, then he has answered the question, and it is perfectly right that- he should do so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: But I assert this, as Lord Reading said in Great Britain-and the British government has seen fit in large measure to remove the anomaly-that the denial of the right of the individual to have recourse to the courts denies that freedom and equity in law to which every citizen in our country is entitled.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the hon. member now
talking about fiats?


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister cannot understand it, then he will have to read it and ultimately ask his law officers to interpret it.


Jean-François Pouliot: If you are for human rights, then admit the contradiction.


John George Diefenbaker: The denial of the right of counsel should be removed in every case and in every statute. It has not been denied in Britain since 1652. If a citizen is denied the right of access to the courts against the decision of a cabinet minister, the minister

is placed in the position that he is able to usurp the rights of the individual and protect wrongdoers who are acting for the crown.
These are only a few matters which in my view deserve the attention of my right hon. friend as Minister of Justice. He, after all, is the conscience of justice of the Canadian people. He is the person in whose custody and subject to whose control reposes and rests the preservation of fundamental freedom. Civil rights and their preservation are the cornerstones of* liberty. All history and our own experiences recently in Canada have shown that these rights are not safe in the hands of the executive when the individual has no right to challenge their legality in the courts.
Let us resolve once for all the doubts that
are expressed as to who has the custody of the preservation of these rights. If they are in the dominion, let us in this parliament do our part toward their preservation. If they are in the provinces, then so far as an international and national bill of rights is concerned, if Canada is to take her place internationally and nationally the provinces will have to assume their responsibility in passing complementary legislation.
This is not a matter for partisanship. Freedom is an abiding thing. It is the heritage which we inherited. Freedom is your right and my right to equality under law. It is your right and my right to respect each other's rights under law.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to an argument in favour of the adoption by this parliament of a comprehensive bill of rights. The amendu ment which has been moved requests that the legal and constitutional position of the dominion and the provinces shall be clarified. With the subject matter of the amendment I am in agreement. I want to say to my hon. friend that while I agree with much of what he has said, indeed with almost all of it, yet I rather think that he tends to overlook something. Recourse to the courts is not always as he suggests it is under various statutes of Canada. As a matter of fact some people are denied access to the courts because they cannot afford to pay the amounts that must necessarily be paid or that are involved in carrying actions right through to their ultimate conclusion. Until that disability has been removed, there is no equality in access to the courts; there is no equality before the law.
I think that is one of the reasons wffiy the workmen's compensation acts are as they are today. The workmen knew that in fighting powerful and wealthy corporal ions for com-

Human Rights
pensation they would be at a distinct disadvantage under certain circumstances. Consequently these acts are drafted as they are.
This is an important committee. I had the privilege, along with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), of attending the San Francisco conference and, jointly with him, being a member of the committee which dealt with certain clauses of the charter of the united nations which have a material bearing on this whole issue.
The committee is being established for the purpose of recommending what steps should be taken in Canada for preserving or extending respect for the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. I want to say that I make no apology for supporting the setting up of a committee of that description. I make no apology for supporting a move to give greater human rights and better fundamental freedoms.
The party with which I am associated in this house shares the long tradition of the workers' movements throughout the world for improved social and economic conditions, for greater freedom and more fundamental rights for humanity. My mind goes back this afternoon, particularly as I heard the hon. gentleman speaking, to the Chartist movement and to 1848, which is sometimes called in out history the year of European revolutions. I remember how that was followed by the long struggle for the right to vote, the long struggle for the universal franchise, the long struggle for the secret ballot and the periodic election of representatives to parliaments. Out of that struggle arose some of the great movements that have made for greater freedom; the trade unions, for example, the cooperative societies and other peoples' movements which we take for granted in the world in which wre are living today. The very basis of the party which I represent here this afternoon, the very basis of democratic socialism is to be found in the legislation which has been adopted through the pressure of ordinary people in all the countries of the world. Those aims were written into the charter of the united nations, a copy of which I hold in my hand. Article 55 reads;
With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the united nations shall promote:
a.	higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development:
b.	solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational co-operation; and
5849-182i
c.	universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
When we signed the charter of the united nations we approved article 56, which reads:
All members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in article 55.
Partly because of article 56 we are taking the action we are taking here today, the setting up of a committee to see how in Canada we can bring about conditions that are more in conformity with the aims and obligations of the united nations. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) in San Francisco in 1945 put their signatures to the charter of the united nations they obligated us not only to set up a committee but to take appropriate action when the committee reports to the house. True, of course, in these days there have been what I might call perversions of the meaning of both the words "democracy" and "socialism". Human rights and fundamental freedoms are being denied in the name of both to millions of people in some parts of the world. But this is not the first time in history that great words, great expressions, great phrases and great ideas have been perverted. Take the history of the Christian religion. Looking back over its long history, we recall how in the name of Christianity from time to time liberties were restricted, freedom of speech and of thought prohibited, and persecutions took place, with war, burnings at the stake and all the rest of it, not by one nation against another but by varying religions against other religions. But these events did not destroy the fundamental value of the Christian religion, nor can any perversion of democracy or of socialism today interfere with the basic rightness of those ideals and -the basic struggle which they involve for human freedom and human good.
So I say that the party with which I am associated is proud to support every move for greater social and economic freedom. But I also say that until we have achieved economic freedom we have not completely achieved a democratic society. As a matter of fact today in this house we are apt to discuss only one side of this problem of freedom. What are the fundamental rights every human being should enjoy?
First I say that every human being, regardless of race, colour, creed, religion, sex, or ethnic origin should have the right to pursue his or her work, to earn a decent living, and
Human Rights

to enjoy the fruits of labour; also to have the opportunity for spiritual and cultural development in conditions of dignity and of freedom. Until we have guaranteed economic freedom, with all that it implies, we have not secured the conditions which provide either for good employment or for proper cultural and spiritual development. I say that this involves more than the elimination of the terrible menace of unemployment, that sense of insecurity which haunts many a worker from the cradle to the grave. It means the right to a voice in the management of industry, as well as the right to organize and bargain collectively, for how free is the individual until he has some say as to the conditions under which he labours in industry and gets his living? I want to express that thought in the words of a great Christian socialist, the late Archbishop of Canterbury, Doctor William Temple, who wrote in his little book, Christianity and Social Order, a paragraph which I remember reading at the time and which strikes a note in my memory today. He said:
The great lack is the absence of any voice in the control or direction of the concern to which most of the -waking hours of the day are given. Till this can be remedied there will be one most important respect in which the -working class is shut out from a vitally important expression of personality. Men have fought and died for a voice in making the laws which they are to obey; that is the essence of political liberty. But the government of the firm for which he works affects a man's life more closely than the government of his state; yet in it he has no part except so far as he may threaten to hold up the process by withdrawing his labour and that of his fellow-workers in a strike. In many businesses nowadays the workers are often consulted, especially about regulations affecting hours and conditions of work. So far, so good; but this is done as a favour and not as a matter of secured right. The cause of freedom will not be established till political freedom is fulfilled in economic freedom.
Moreover, until this is done, the breach in the fellowship-of which the class-war is the ultimate expression-must remain. It is important to remember that the class-war was not first proclaimed as a crusade by Marx and Engels, it was first announced as a fact by Adam Smith. Nothing can securely end it except the acquisition by labour of -a share in the control of industry.
That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the fundamental rights, one of the fundamental freedoms, that is often overlooked in a debate of this kind. While I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) that we should write into our constitution a bill of rights safeguarding our political liberties we shall never have full freedom and full fundamental rights until the dignity of every man is recognized and until every man's right to a say in the conditions under which he

works and lives has been established. These are some of the basic rights which in my opinion have yet to be achieved, basic rights which to a very large extent through being denied are responsible for the great wave of unrest that is passing across the world. I believe with the late Archbishop Temple that until we have given recognition to the dignity of the worker in relation to his own industry we shall never meet the threat of that class war which threatens us today. Indeed once you give that right, you banish the very reason for such a class war, because then the worker will be in a position to control his own destiny in common with others m the community.
Freedom of association and freedom of expression, as my hon. friend the member for Lake Centre so well said this afternoon, we have been in danger of losing through what I think were ill-advised actions of the government during the lifetime of this parliament. The government knows what I am now thinking of. It is not only that kind of action which jeopardizes our fundamental freedoms, but the kind of action that is sometimes encouraged by people who have not thought the matter through when they approve mob violence in any form. I regret sincerely that within the last few weeks we have seen violence against political leaders and a political party whose fundamental principles I cordially detest. Nonetheless, if we condone violence against parties we dislike the time may come when the very procedure that we have condoned may be used against all the rest of us. We cannot afford ever to pass over lightly any violation of those freedoms which we enjoy.
If I may use this as an illustration, Great Britain at the present time is probably the nation, certainly in the European continental orbit, with the least danger from either fascism or communism. I was over there twice during the war. I went to the Hyde Park comer where I saw the utmost freedom of speech. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), the hon member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and I went there one evening. There was a crowd of soldiers and sailors of various nationalities, British, American, Polish, and so on around there. We heard a speaker denouncing the war and calling upon the people to stop what he called the bloody slaughter. He was telling them how they would be fooled once more when the war was over. All the time a policeman was walking around seeing that there was no interference and no attempt at interference. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the more freedom of speech we have, the less danger there will be of subversive elements destroying our democratic institutions. Therefore I say that these recent disturbances have been very dis-

Human Rights
quieting to those of us who believe in freedom. They are symptomatic of dangerous tendencies which, being allowed to grow, may have dire results. After all, if violence is used against those who believe in violence- because both the fascist and communist parties fundamentally believe that the only way to secure control of the state eventually is by the forcible overthrow of the state-we invite and justify their violence later on. We must see that we do not jeopardize our fundamental freedom in that regard.
Then sometimes we have ill-considered legislation. My hon. friend mentioned some this afternoon. Very recently we have had an ill-considered piece of legislation which has done more to play into the hands of subversive elements than anything that has happened in Canada for a long time. I refer to the recent legislation passed in Prince Edward Island dealing with labour unions, outlawing national unions and international unions, excepting only those that are connected with the railways. When you attempt to interfere with the right of labour to organize freely in associations of its own choice as Canadian citizens all across Canada in co-operation with their fellow Canadians you are inviting serious trouble, and you are placing in the hands of those who wish to point out that governments will destroy labour unions whenever the opportunity and necessity arises, an argument which, as long as legislation of that description remains on the statute books, you cannot meet. Therefore I say that we must beware lest legislation of that description is allowed to stand. Consequently I am glad that the committee on industrial relations has also been set up and that a national labour code will be considered.
I should like to see a code which gives every Canadian wherever he may live the right to organize and bargain collectively. It requires, as do some other matters with which my hon. friend dealt this afternoon, some complementary legislation, some understanding between the provinces and the dominion about their respective powers; but every effort should be made to see to it that every Canadian worker has full rights as a Canadian citizen.
We have seen the rights of minorities interfered with. Goodness knows I have no connection with or sympathy for the teachings of, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses. Particularly I have no sympathy for some of the propaganda and their statements; but I view with considerable misgivings attempts to crush out a religious minority and to prevent their discussing religious issues from their point of view. Surely the rest of us who do not believe in the kind of teachings which they present to the Canadian people have enough faith in
our own religious bodies to be able to meet the criticisms that they level against the churches -and I use the plural because all our churches are criticized by Jehovah's Witnesses-to which we collectively or severally belong. Therefore I say that we have to beware lest we permit the persecution of minorities; because if we do we are false to the fundamentals of human freedom, of fundamental human rights, and we are false to the very charter which our representatives signed at San Francisco and which this parliament subsequently approved.
We have as well the blot on our statute books which we of this party tried to remove again this year, namely, the continuance of disabilities against a group of Canadians who are of a different race and different colour from our own, I refer to Canadians of Japanese origin. I might also say that we have not yet removed all the disabilities against another group, the Chinese residents of this country, who do not enjoy the same privileges as residents of other nationalities within this country. Until we have removed these blots on our escutcheon, we shall find it difficult to face the committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms of the united nations. In fact, when I was there in the autumn of 1946 and some of these matters were under discussion, to a minor extent, I know that all the members, irrespective of party, of the Canadian delegation felt very conscious of the manner in which we ourselves were situated when some of these topics came before the assembly or were mentioned by representatives of other nations.
I say that we have to beware lest we ourselves are guilty of that which we condemn. We should remove from our statute books and from our country all the disabilities which afflict individuals merely because they are of a different race, different colour or different religion. I know, too, that there are parts of Canada -where people of different racial origin find it difficult to get hotel and other accommodation. That is -a disgrace in Canada in 1948. The hon. member for Lake Centre mentioned freedom of the press. That is a precious heritage. No one who has read that wonderful tract by John Milton, the "Areo-pagitica", a plea for the liberty of the press, can fail to understand that his plea referred to one of the very bases of our fundamental freedoms. John Wilkes came along later, and after arrest and trial he established the right to criticize the crown's ministers, to report the debates of parliament and to say what he would about public questions. Freedom of the press? I say freedom from censorship of
Human Rights

books, of the press and of art, except only to the extent made necessary by the requirements of morality and of decency. There should be no other form of censorship except that we should see to it that decency and morality are protected. I remember an amusing incident which occurred a few years ago in the city in which I lived. A friend of mine sent to a secondhand book store in Britain to get some books. When they arrived, he received all the books except one. The book he did not receive was sent to Ottawa to see if it was a fit one for him to read. The book was "Socialism, Critical and Constructive", by James Ramsay MacDonald who at that time was Prime Minister of Britain.


Gordon Graydon: Those fellows read it too.


Thomas John Bentley: What did Ottawa say?


Major James William Coldwell: That it was a good book for him to read, and he received it. That was back in 1923 or 1924.


Gordon Graydon: That is the time of their conversion.


Major James William Coldwell: I am afraid they are not yet converted.


Gordon Graydon: They have gone a long way.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Peel is a distinguished citizen of a province in which his own party laid fairly wide foundations of public ownership which will be extremely useful later on when we come to extend public ownership in the form we advocate. I refer, of course, to the hydro electric system of Ontario.
It seems to me that we need to strengthen, as the hon. member for Lake Centre said this afternoon-and I think this was the best part of his address, as a matter of fact-the protection of the individual in our country after what we have seen in recent days, against arbitrary arrest, detention without due process of law, and search and seizure except by the process of law. When arrests are made, charges should be laid promptly. Never again, I hope, will any persons, no matter of what they may be accused, be whisked away somewhere, so that their friends and relatives do not know where they are, and be denied access to counsel. I do not believe that will happen again, because I believe the government finally felt that, while the circumstances may have been grave, such procedure could not be justified.
So when arrests are made, the charges should be laid promptly; the opportunity to plead should be given promptly as well as the opportunity to consult counsel regarding

the charges which have been laid. I say again that I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre when he says that violations of these principles by the present government may be dangerous precedents for a government in the future, unless we are prepared to write into the statutes of our country measures giving protection against such incidents recurring in the future.
I spoke of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right of every individual, and I said that it should be restated over and over again whenever we havg an opportunity to do so.
As I have already said, the rights of individuals should be uniform across Canada. I am proud of the fact that in my own province of Saskatchewan, under the first C.C.F. government to be elected there, a comprehensive bill of rights has been enacted. That is an example which I hope will be followed by other provinces and by this dominion. I am proud of that enactment. I think it is significant that the first government to be elected in Canada which advocated the principles of democratic socialism was the first government in Canada to place on the statute books a comprehensive bill of rights. 1 believe it shows more completely than all the words which can be spoken exactly where we stand with regard to human freedom.


Mr. GRANT:: The next one was Prince Edward Island.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Yes; your labour bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member spoke out of turn there.


Major James William Coldwell: So far as the interruption of the hon. gentleman is concerned, may I say that the hon. member sits in this house as a Liberal; it is true, Liberal with a capital "L." But when I look back on the history of liberalism with a small "1", and what has taken place in Prince Edward Island, may I tell him-
Mr. fiNOWLES: It is a case of liberalism gone to "L".


Major James William Coldwell: That is very good, but hardly appropriate for the record. The hon. member's liberalism has fallen from the high pedestal on which the old-fashioned nineteenth century Liberals once placed it. I say that it is not liberalism; it is the height of reactionary-ism, and I hope that the people of Prince Edward Island will endeavour to remove that blot from the escutcheon of their province.
So I say I am proud of the fact that a socialist government in Saskatchewan enacted a

Human Rights
bill of rights to the extent that authority to do so was within its competence. From what was said in the debate at that time I know that that government would be prepared to discuss with the federal government the writing into our statutes of a bill of rights, even if it means granting to the federal authority certain legislative prerogatives which the province now enjoys under our constitution. Let me say that what one province does is not enough. All Canadians, wherever they live, should have the same fundamental rights and the same fundamental freedoms.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I want to say I believe that no Canadian delegation can go to the united nations and sit on committees dealing with this problem until we have ourselves done something to lay the foundations more securely for human rights and fundamental freedoms in our own country. When we have done that, we can then go there and criticize more effectively and conscientiously those countries which today are denying the elementary rights of human freedom. In the past few years we have seen many interferences with human rights. We have seen indignity after indignity, torture and death inflicted upon men and women of various races, creeds, colours or political opinions. I care not what may be the race or creed or colour or political opinion of a man or woman; he or she must be safeguarded in the exercise of those fundamental rights and human freedoms.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish to raise a question of order, Mr. Speaker; I am not taking part in the debate. On Friday evening the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) moved an amendment to the resolution in the words which are to be found at page 2847 of Hansard for April 9. My submission is that the amendment is not in order, for two or three reasons.
In the first place it is in essence a separate motion rather than an amendment. The motion itself is to set up a committee, and it prescribes the terms of reference to that committee. If this amendment had sought to add to the duties or functions or purposes of the committee it would have been in order. Instead of that, it seeks to cast a duty upon the executive of the government of Canada, and therefore in essence is a separate motion and not an amendment.
Secondly, and I submit this ground with great confidence, the amendment would cast upon the Supreme Court of Canada the duty of doing what the committee is to be appointed to do. One of the duties of the committee is to consider what is the legal
and constitutional situation in Canada with respect to such rights. The object of the amendment is to take that function away from the committee and place it instead with the Supreme Court of Canada. If that reference were made to the supreme court the matter would then become sub judice and the committee would be unable, during the time the matter was being considered by the supreme court, to consider what is the legal and constitutional situation in Canada with respect to such rights. The two objects cannot co-exist in the same resolution. Then the resolution would say the committee is to determine what is the legal and constitutional situation in Canada with respect to such rights, and the amendment would say that for a period at least, while it is assumed the committee will be sitting, the Supreme Court of Canada is to consider that very question.
I think there are other grounds as well but I shall not mention them. I just want to say that the two grounds I have raised are without prejudice to such other grounds as may exist; but I submit these two grounds, and certainly the second one, with confidence.


James Horace King: Do any other hon. gentlemen wish to speak to the point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: My submission is that the amendment is really an enlargement of the motion and as such is in order. My right hon. friend said his strongest objection was the second one he raised, that it would cast upon the Supreme Court of Canada the duty of deciding what is legal and constitutional. As a matter of fact the motion now reads:
... in the light of the provisions contained in the charter of the united nations, and the establishment by the economic and social council thereof of a commission on human rights, what is the legal and constitutional situation in Canada with respect to such rights . . .
The only way any committee can determine what is the legal and constitutional position in Canada is by a submission provided under the Supreme Court Act. No amount of discussion on the part of the committee can add to or subtract in the slightest from the legal and constitutional situation. Last year we found ourselves in the position that grave doubts concerning the matter were expressed by the deputy minister of justice. With a view to resolving those doubts, as Your Honour knows, the matter was submitted to the deans of law schools and the attorneys general of the several provinces. They merely expressed their opinions on the subject; and the only body that can determine what is the legal and constitutional
Human Rights

situation in Canada is the supreme court. Without that decision, any discussion by a committee would be merely technical discussion and would not be in any way final or definite. If the committee is to learn these legal and constitutional matters, the supreme court alone should determine them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then should the committee not recommend that there be a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend has changed his attitude slightly. A moment ago he advanced with certainty


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not at all.


John George Diefenbaker: Please; after all I did not interrupt the right hon. gentleman.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But I have not changed my attitude.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to know what it is but a change of attitude. Certainly that is my inference when a moment ago the right hon. gentleman said a submission to the supreme court would take away from this committee the right to determine the legal and constitutional position.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


John George Diefenbaker: Now he advances the argument that if the wording were slightly changed and the committee were given the right to ask for that power, then it would be proper. I submit that is exactly what he has done; he has altered his position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a few words with respect to the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley). At the outset I wish to say I am in favour of the substance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and anything I say with respect to the point of order is aimed at getting what he seeks, in a proper way. It does seem to me that there is some validity to the two points raised by the Minister of Justice. First of all, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre would add, to a motion setting up a committee, an instruction to the government. It seems to me that is something altogether different, and its propriety as an amendment would have to be studied. Then there is the other point raised by the minister, that if the amendment were carried and the motion as amended were adopted it would result in the same subject matter being referred to two bodies, the committee and the Supreme Court of Canada. In that event it seems to me that the course

indicated by the Minister of Justice might follow, namely, that, with the matter being before the Supreme Court of Canada, for a time at least it would be sub judice and therefore not capable of being discussed by the committee.
My reason for speaking is not to confuse the situation but to express the hope that if, after listening to the arguments on both sides, Your Honour should rule the amendment out of order, that will not necessarily be the end of the matter. It does seem to me that it would be possible to meet the objections raised by the Minister of Justice by some other member moving another amendment.


Gordon Graydon: You are getting ready for that now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have it already prepared, but I am ready to let the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) have it so that he can move it.


Gordon Graydon: It is no surprise to me; but I will not move it, although I have not seen it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My suggestion is that the very same wording proposed by the hon. member for Lake Centre could be proposed as a third or fourth paragraph; but I have given away the only copy I have, so that I cannot read it.


Gordon Graydon: You may have it back.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It could be added as a third or fourth paragraph-in that part of the motion which gives powers to the committee. One of the powers given to the committee could be the power to request a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. It seems to me that not only would that be in order, inasmuch as it would be an extension of the powers of the committee to be set up, but it would also leave to the committee the decision as to whether or not it wants this matter referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. In other words, the matter would not be taken out of the committee's hands against its will, but would go to the courts only when the committee so decided.
May I make it clear that I am not trying to steal the thunder of the hon. member for Lake Centre. On the contrary I am just trying to be helpful; and I hope that if Your Honour does rule the present amendment out of order someone else-I would not hesitate to do it myself, but a member of the Progressive Conservative party could do it if he wished- would move this amendment which would serve to meet the objection of the Minister of

Human Rights
Justice, so that we may achieve the desirable objective set out by the hon. member for Lake Centre, namely, that at some stage of the proceedings we shall have, not the opinions of provincial attorneys general, not the opinions of deans of schools of law, but the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada.


James Horace King: Before the point of order was raised this afternoon, I had given consideration to the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and, in that connection, had prepared the following ruling:
The main motion proposes that a select committee be set up to consider, inter alia, what is the legal and constitutional situation in Canada with respect to human rights and fundamental freedoms. The hon. member for Lake Centre has moved in amendment that in order to assist the committee in its deliberations the government immediately submit to the Supreme Court of Canada such questions as are necessary to determine to what extent the preservation of the fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and the maintenance of constitutional safeguards of the individual are matters of federal jurisdiction.
This amendment actually proposes that the supreme court be asked to consider the same matter that the main motion proposes to refer to a select committee. It seems to me that both those propositions cannot be approved at the same time by the house. If the constitutional situation of human rights is submitted to the supreme court it thereby becomes sub judice and cannot be considered by the committee until the court has given its decision. The question cannot be before two public bodies at the same time. For this reason I feel bound to rule the amendment out of order.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, a motion similar to this, to set up a committee to look into and to recommend with respect to matters concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms, was passed at the last session of parliament. The present motion is made to set up the same type of committee for^ this year's deliberations.
I fancy the government must attach some considerable importance to the committee by reason of the fact that the speech from the throne read by His Excellency at the commencement of the session contained a recommendation that a committee be set up for this purpose.
While much has been said in debate with respect to human rights and fundamental 5849-183
freedoms as they are related to the united nations organization, I shall not deal with that phase of the subject. This afternoon I shall sound a note which I fancy will not be accepted any too readily in some parts of Canada, and perhaps not too readily in some parts of this House of Commons.
I am not so much impressed by arguments which have been used by those who advocate the need for a bill of rights for Canada. We talk about freedom of speech; we talk about freedom of religion and freedom of association; but I am always inclined to ask myself which of these freedoms we have lost, or which of them we are in danger of losing.
Have we not always had these freedoms; do they not still exist? The only freedom which people in this country have not realized is economic freedom. And when one proposes a way in which that freedom could be established, his proposal is taboo. In what way are our human rights and fundamental freedoms endangered today? To hear some speak, one would be almost led to the conclusion that the present administration must be on the verge of taking some of those freedoms from us. Of course in time of war we have witnessed the government exercising certain controls which were necessary in wartime. We have delegated, by legislation, the power to the present government to institute those controls. We have been waiting patiently for the government to release them since the war.
That release may not be taking place as quickly as some of us might wish. Personally, however, I cannot quite believe that the present administration desires to take away from Canadians their human rights and fundamental freedoms. I have been sitting in this corner of the house for about thirteen years looking at pretty much the same faces on the treasury benches. I have opposed much that they have proposed; but I cannot quite bring myself to the belief that they are so lax in their loyal Canadianism that they would interfere today with the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Canadians.
I have associated with my Conservative friends. They may some time or another take over the reins of office. They may not have a solution for the economic freedom of the nation, but I am quite sure that if they were in office they would not assume their responsibilities with any idea of curtailing our human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I have listened to our C.C.F. friends and I do not know that I am so enthusiastic about our human rights and fundamental freedoms being so safe in their hands. I cannot quite
Human Rights

bring myself to believe that all this crying aloud in Canada for a bill of rights is so necessary. Why all the hollering?


Norman Jaques: Just a smoke-screen.
Mr. HANS'ELL: Even those who would have destroyed our freedom in Canada during the past were left free in the matter of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. The fact is we did not hear a great deal about a bill of rights in Canada until the freedom of the communists appeared to be in jeopardy. It was not until the government began to crack down on communistic activities that the cry arose and certain people in Canada began to clamour for the protection of our freedom. That is so; there is no question about it.
What freedoms have we been denied in Canada? What freedoms have Canadians been denied that communists or anyone else would restore to us? Indeed, what freedoms and human rights would the communists give us that we have not already? I ask that question in all sincerity.
I am as convinced as I ever could be that traitors to our way of life are behind1 this clamour for a bill of rights to protect our fundamental freedoms. What do they want it for? They want it in order that they may be free to destroy the way of free men. I should like someone to answer this question if they can. I want to know if a traitor has the right to the freedoms inherent in our democratic way of life which he seeks to destroy?
I said I was convinced that behind this clamour for a bill of rights was the voice of communism. Even my good friend, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), for whom I have the greatest regard, can be fooled. He is a very able debater; he is a very able gentleman within his own field as a legal exponent, but I am afraid that on this subject his mental vision has been cramped into the musty confines of the court room. He should enlarge his scope of vision; he should lift his sights; he should attempt to extricate himself from the legal court room strait-jacket.
When he has done that and has considered the subject in its wider concept he should then examine himself and ask himself whether or not the speeches which he has made in and1 out of this house on the subject of a bill of rights would be acceptable in communist circles. I believe he would have to conclude that if he gave his speeches on this subject he would be welcomed with open arms into every communist organization in Canada. Let him analyse that and ask himself that question.

I enjoy his speeches. I enjoyed the one he made this afternoon and with much of it I agree. However I must confess that I was a bit confused this afternoon. I assure him that I shall read his speech in Hansard tomorrow and attempt to analyse it more thoroughly. It seemed to me that at one time he indicated that our human rights and fundamental freedoms came under provincial jurisdiction, while at other times he seemed to indicate that he thought they should come under federal jurisdiction. I am a little confused there. I should like to know if he advocates that our human rights and fundamental freedoms should come under the authority of an international organization. That seems to me to be the big issue.
I said that perhaps what I had to say would not be readily accepted in some parts of Canada. During the recent past since there has been this cry for a bill of rights we have received a good deal of correspondence, some of it from organizations known as organizations for the preservation of our human rights and fundamental freedoms. I think anyone who is in the know does know that organizations throughout the United States and Canada which are pressing for a bill of rights are nothing more or less than communist fronts.
The other day I received a letter from the Civil Rights Union of Toronto, and I suppose all hon. members received a similar letter. The subject matter of the letter dealt with the LaCroix bill. I am not concerned with the merits or the demerits of that bill; I am concerned only with the fact that this letter was written on the letterhead of the Civil Rights Union, an organization which appears to regard our civil rights as being so precious. Who are the people attached to this organization as indicated by the names on the letterhead? I shall read them to you, Mr. Speaker.
The chairman is Mrs. M. H. Spaulding, secretary, Miss Dorothy Henderson; Jack Cowan, A. T. DeLury, Barker Fairley, Leopold Infeld, A. Y. Jackson, C. S. Jackson, C. B. Macpher-son, Ben Manson, F. W. Park, H. C. Pentland,
J.	H. Sword, J. M. Wainberg. Will anyone say that some of these people are not communists?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Jack Sword is not.


Ernest George Hansell: Some at 'least of them belong to the Labour Progressive party in this country. Analyse their records. Some of them may be respectable people; I do not know, but the old adage still holds good with me, "birds of a feather flock together". Let us not forget that it is quite possible to judge the colour of a movement by the personalities sponsoring it.

Human Rights
Here is another letter which came during the sittings of last year's committee. It comes, according to the letterhead, from the Committee for Bill of Rights, and the address is given as Toronto. The letter asks the committee to look into certain matters. I quote this paragraph from it:
The constitution of Canada, of which the B.N.A. Act is the principal written part, is a constitution "similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom," and embraces by implication but nowhere expressly sets forth in binding and [DOT]written form such fundamental freedoms as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press and association, nor does it afford protection for the individual against arbitrary arrest, seizure and excessive bail, and other like civil liberties and human rights.
The next paragraph refers to legislative or administrative action and protection through the courts. The passage I have quoted is, I suggest, an attack upon the present administration. Of course it is not the first time they have been attacked; I have attacked them myself a good many times. But this attack on the present administration arises from their handling of the spy ring not so long ago. I am not going to criticize the government for that because, as a matter of fact, I do not disagree with anything they did in that respect. If I had anything to reprimand the government for it would be for allowing that situation to develop. But I ask this question. Who but a traitor or saboteur is in danger of arbitrary arrest? I wish someone would answer that question. I should like the Committee for Bill of Rights which sent in this submission to answer that question if they can. Who but a traitor or saboteur to our nation is in danger of seizure and excessive bail? I should like to know who is. I should like to know- who would arrest these men and haul them into court unduly. It is only the traitor and saboteur who are in danger of anything of that kind. I do not think this government, or any other possible government, except perhaps one that might be remotely looming on the horizon, would do such a thing. Let these people say who would do these things. If they say, but some day a government might arise that would do these things, let them name that possibility. The only one that I can see at the present time is the communists, the reds.


Norman Jaques: The pinks.


Ernest George Hansell: Or the pinks, who perhaps are on the way. Here is another question I would ask. Even though these specific items, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and freedom of association are written into our constitution, does anyone imagine or suggest 5849-1831
for a moment that a communist government would regard these constitutional rights as inviolable? Why, the constitution itself would at once become a scrap of paper.
This Committee for Bill of Rights, whose address is Toronto, and which sends in this submission, sends an accompanying list of names of people who are supposed to be supporting the committee's efforts for a bill of rights, and in order to save time, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be given permission to put the list of names on Hansard without reading them.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: Has the hon. member leave of the house to put the list on Hansardf


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Other hon. MEMBERS: No.


William Henry Golding: There must be unanimous consent. There was objection, so that perhaps the hon. member had better read the list if he wishes it to appear in Hansard.
Mr. -HANSELL: It would take considerable time to read them because they cover two foolscap pages. There are about two hundred names.


Mr. WEIR:: Who are they?


Ernest George Hansell: The Committee for Bill of Rights wrote to the house committee suggesting that our human rights and fundamental freedoms be embodied in the constitution, and they submitted with their letter a list of names gathered throughout Canada of people who are supporting them in this move.


Mr. KNIGHT:: Is there any proof that these people are supporting them?


Ernest George Hansell: I think we shall have to take it that they support them. The committee would not submit the list without soliciting the support of these people. I could read the list, but why detain the house all that time?


William Henry Golding: I will ask the hon. members again if they agree to the hon. member putting this list of names on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if we are to have the list of names put on Hansard we should also have the whole document put on. I do not see much object in having the list of names unless we know what they are supporting.


William Henry Golding: Unless there is agreement by the house tlw:
Human Rights

hon. member cannot put the list on the record. I ask again if the house is agreeable or opposed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We are opposed.


Ernest George Hansell: I did not get unanimous consent. Those who have not given unanimous consent have played right into my hands.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Most of us would be happy to be there.


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you. Some interest will be aroused now as to who those men are. I shall read a few of them. There is Mr. Carl J. Stimpfle, president of the farmers' union of Alberta.


Mr. McCUAIG:: Nothing the matter with him.


Ernest George Hansell: There is not? The man is a communist if ever one did live. I mention him only as one. If Doctor Sidney Smith wants to have his name associated with him, it is here.


Norman Jaques: And a good many more.


Ernest George Hansell: I will say this, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was doing these people a favour by pointing out to them who their associates were in this matter. Do they know? Did they know what they were supporting? I fancy some of them at least thought they were supporting the preservation of our freedoms against communism, and, being unaware that the reverse was the truth, they willingly lent their names and support to a sponsorship that would steal our freedoms from us. I repeat, I thought I was doing these people a signal service by pointing out who their associates were.
To my mind there are only two classes of people who are crying for a bill of rights in Canada, and having it written into our constitution under the sinister pressure of communist friends. Those two classes are traitors and dupes.


Norman Jaques: Reds and pinks.


Ernest George Hansell: We can think that one over, and I am saying that with some responsibility. I believe that to be absolutely true.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: May I ask a question? In which category will the hon. member put Doctor Sidney Smith?


Ernest George Hansell: Doctor Sidney Smith is a very clever man, but I am going to say that the cleverest of men have fallen for these communist fronts. Did not the spy report indicate to us that the Canadian-Soviet friendship league was a communist front? May I say to the hon. member for Dauphin that his own leader was one of the prominent
[The Acting Speaker.]
men in that organization. I will ask him, was he a communist or was he duped into it? Let him answer that one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So was the Prime Minister.


Ernest George Hansell: If he was, that only adds weight and force to my argument, that even very intelligent people can be duped into these things.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend does not say that my name is on that list, does he?


Ernest George Hansell: No, I am not saying that the Prime Minister's name is on that list to which I referred. What the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reminded me of was that the Prime Minister supported the Canadian-Soviet friendship league, which was a communist front. His name was prominently advertised in that connection.


Mr. CLAXTON:: It was not a communist front at that time.


Ernest George Hansell: Oh!


John Horne Blackmore: Who says so?


Ernest George Hansell: Now, Mr. Chairman, we have the Minister of National Defence, a keen-minded man, saying that it was not a communist front at that time.


Brooke Claxton: I asked the question if that is not so; that it was not so at that time.


Ernest George Hansell: All I will say to him is this, if it was not a communist front at the time, then while they were in the organization the communists were clever enough to put it over them and make it a communist front. They did not safeguard their organization. If that is what he says, this is my answer to him: all these organizations parading under these fancy names were communist fronts. Let it not be forgotten that error does not go around parading as error. As one man once upon a time said, two beautiful young women went bathing one day. One of these young women was named Truth and the other Error. When Truth took a dive into the water Error put on her clothes and has been parading around ever since in Truth's clothes. Perhaps that is why all these intelligent man have been falling for Error.
It is nearly six o'clock, and my hon. friend wants to ask another question.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is a very short one. May I ask if the hon. member agrees with the views expressed by Mr. W. D. Herridge, with whom he was once very closely associated, in his book called, "Which Kind of Revolution?"

Human Rights


Norman Jaques: We do not agree with him.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: He is one of your gods.


Ernest George Hansell: I have not read the book; therefore I do not know whether I agree with him or not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was the founder of new democracy.


Ernest George Hansell: I have a sheaf of notes and I am not yet through with my speech. Perhaps I shall be able to give the rest of it on some other occasion.


Norman Jaques: After supper.


Ernest George Hansell: Unfortunately I cannot do that. I have to address a public meeting tonight and cannot be here at eight o'clock. I shall have to continue at some other time. Let me say this. Let us be on our guard in respect of these matters. These human rights and fundamental freedoms are precious to us and we have them. You can write these things into a constitution, but putting them on paper and making them law does not preserve them. They are principles of life, and they operate as an organism operates; as life operates. This government is not going to take them from us; perhaps no one in this house is going to take them from us. If you want to write them into law, all right; but that does not preserve them and it does not give them to us. What we have to be on guard against is this false and evil thing coming into our country and stealing from us our human rights and fundamental freedoms, making Ottawa, if you please, another Prague and Canada another Czechoslovakia, Remember this, the people of the satellite states talked the same way some of our Canadians are talking, before these rights were stolen from them. Let us remember that. I have a strange and strong conviction that I am right. Believe me, I am right. I am sorry I cannot go on tonight, but you will hear from me again, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, we must state the question and try to understand what is meant by liberty and freedom. My understanding of liberty is that it is the faculty of man to act within the limits of the law. It is a general definition, but there is not absolute liberty in this world. Ever
since the Ten Commandments were given to man, there have been restrictions on his liberty. The object of the civil law-and in using that expression I take it in a broad sense; I mean the purpose of all laws made by man-is just to help man to act in conformity with the Ten Commandments. This is the principle of all legislation. Naturally there is too much of it and there are hindrances as a result of the excess of legislation. But I still persist in saying that freedom is the faculty given to man to act within the law.
There are, of course, some good laws and some bad ones. That is inevitable. That goes with the freedom of man. But law is conducive to order. The purpose of law is to maintain order, because order is the most desirable condition of society; and order in society is to be appreciated by men as the normal condition of affairs. When some men act as termites to destroy the pillars of state and to destroy order, that order must be maintained in spite of the efforts of the few to destroy it. This is why sanctions are necessary in order to maintain order in any well organized state. It is not a pleasure to pay taxes for the support of policemen, but it is done in all civilized countries in order that the laws shall be respected. There are constables at the various doors of this building. They do not arrest anybody. They are here just in case something wrong happens and just to maintain order and to restore order if ever it is disturbed.
There are some people who have more sympathy with those who destroy the order of society than with those who abide by the law. It is their right to think in that way, but it is my right to tell them that they are wrong. I remember the time during the war when people were so enthusiastic-at least, some of them were-in defending the liberties of the people that they were calling the draftees "zombies". They thought those men ought to be sent to jail because they were not reporting at once after what had been said to them by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and some of the cabinet ministers. An atmosphere had been created, and that atmosphere was inflated by prejudice. Those men who are now the champions of liberty and of fundamental rights were precisely those who were most unjust toward an honest and respectable class of our population. And they were less excusable for being so prejudiced and bigoted, because there were some exemptions for people who said they were conscientious objectors. But when a farmer was honest enough to say that he was not a conscientious objector, he was called a zombie, and had "traitor" written on his brow by those men
Human Rights

who today advocate liberty for all. It is a great conversion, and I admire the zeal of the neophytes in the predication of liberty and freedom.
Before going farther, I want to say how greatly surprised I am that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) was not given the opportunity to table the list of names he mentioned or to put them on Hansard. How can we listen to speeches about human rights, freedom of speech, the freedom of this or the freedom of that, when objection is taken to allowing a member to put on Hansard a list of names that has been sent to each member of the committee on human rights? I have that list here. I wonder if the house will accept it and allow it to be put on Hansard as it is? If not, I will read it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is it?


Jean-François Pouliot: It contains the names of those who are for legislation on human rights.


James Horace King: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to table this list?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is that not the list which was just refused?


James Horace King: If there is no objection-


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a list of names of those who favour a committee on human rights, and who wrote to the members of the committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Lay it on the table.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it the same list that was refused from the Social Credit comer this afternoon?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is the same list, but it was not sufficiently explained. It is a list of names hon. members have received.


James Horace King: I have already put the question. If there is no objection the hon. gentleman may table the list. If there is objection he may not do so.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then it may be tabled?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I will read it; and this shows how prejudiced in fact are the hon. members who say they are for human rights. They consider it a shame to mention the names of some communists and some honourable people who are in favour of this. They are for human rights. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) is for human rights; the hon.

member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has prepared a long speech on that subject, but -they do not want to be told who are their partners. They are not sincere about it. This shows what a joke it is from beginning to end.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is an unparliamentary remark.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, it is true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Temiscouata is making the assertion that those of us who object to this list being tabled without being read are insincere. I submit that the word "insincere" applied in that case is out of order and unparliamentary, and should be withdrawn.


Jean-François Pouliot: Those who are for human rights apparently do not want this list on Hansard, and I say they are not sincere.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read it.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the word is unparliamentary I withdraw it. I withdraw everything that is unparliamentary, because I am going to read these names.


James Horace King: I must call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that this afternoon, when I was absent from the chamber, an hon. member who had the floor asked the same privilege the hon. gentleman is asking now, and it was refused.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I say it is a joke to speak of human rights, freedom of speech and all that bunk. Now I will take the names one by one:
Vancouver: Earle Bireny, Dr. Norman Black, Kenneth Drury, Hugh Dobson, John Gross, Dr. A. E. Grauer, Lawren Harris, Adolph Koldofsky, Leon Ladner, K.C., Hunter Lewis, R. J. Mc-Master, Dr. Norman McKenzie, Elmore Phil-pott, Dorothy Steeves, Watson Thomson.
Victoria: Dr. J. M. Ewing, Rev. A. E. White-house.
New Westminster:	Dorothy Livesay.
Edmonton: L. Y. Cairns, K.C., C. H. Huestis, George Hunter, Elmer Roper, M.P.P., Carl J. Stimpfle, R. H. Settle, P. G. Winspear.
Calgary:	Alex Calhoun, Gladstone Virtue,

Saskatoon: F. T. Appleby, Dean F. C. Conkite.
Regina:	Hon. J. W. Corman, K.C., Mrs.
Margaret Cooper, Hon. T. C. Douglas, Rev.
J.	P. C. Fraser, Rev. Homer Lane, Dr. H. C. Newlands, C. G. Palmer, A. B. Ross.
Winnipeg: Grant Dexter. Samuel Freedman,
K.	C., Eileen Garland, Jos. Harris, E. J. McMur-ray, K.C., David Owen, Victor Sifton, Dr. Carle-ton W. Stanley, Dr. A. W. Trueman, Dean D. S. Woods, W. J. Waines.
Ottawa:	Mrs. John Bird, Patrick Conroy,
Phileas Cote, M.P., R. E. G. Davis, Maurice Fyfe, Major J. C. G. Herwig, J. M. Macdonnell, M.P., A. B. MacDonald, A. R. Mosher, Senator Arthur Roebuck, Alistair Stewart, M.P.

Human Rights
Toronto:	J. E. Atkinson, Dr. Gordon Agnew,
Gerston Allen, C. A. Ashley, Andrew Brewin, Dr. Peter Bryce, Karel Buzak, George Bagwell, John Coulter, Dr. E. A. Oorbett, Murray Cot-terill, Jack Cooke, Dr. Harry Cassidy, Capt. R. G. Cavell, Dr. W. A. Cameron, Dr. John Coburn, Ethel Chapman, Warren Cook, William Arthur Deacon, Rev. Gordon Domm. Rev. J. T. Dawson, Oakley Dalgleish, Rabbi A. L. Feinberg, Mrs. Ivaspar Fraser, Rev. J. M. Finlay, Anne Fromer, Prof, J. Finkelman, Edith Fowke, Mrs. W. L. Grant. G. M. A. Grube, Margaret Gould, Lome Green, Marvin Gelber, Saul Grand, Leonard Harman, Andrew Hebb, Irving Himel, Prof. Charles E. Hendrie, Emmanuel Hahn. Leopold Infeld. Dr. Harold Innes, Canon W. W. Judd, Rev. Wm. Jenkins, Emma Kaufman, Prof. J. D. Ketchum, Dr. C. C. Lingard, George Mc-Cullagh, Sir Ernest MacMillan. C. H. Millard, Elliott L. Marrus, G. H. Maitland, J. S. Mid-anik. Dr. S. K. Ngai, Dr. Lome Pierce, Dr. E. J. Pratt. A. F. W. Plumptre, Dr. Stanley Russell, Ben Rose. Dr. A. Rose, Ralph Staples, Dr. Sidney Smith, Provost R. S. K. Seeley, B. K. Sand-well, Mrs. Margaret Spaulding. Rev. J. Lavell Smith, George Tatham, Rev. E. H. Toye. Mrs. P. Tanner, Bessie Touzel, E. B. Titus, William M. Teresio. Herman Voaden, David Vanek, Dr. Malcolm Wallace. Jack Wainberg, Drummond Wren, Leon Weinstein, Prof. H. Wastaneys, Isabel Wilson.
Windsor: George Burt, Mayor Arthur J. Reaume.
Kingston: Lt.-Col. Eric Harrison, A. R. M. Lower, Gregory Ylastos.
Hamilton:	Mayor Sam Lawrence.
Montreal:	Dean W. H. Britain, Rev. Angus
Cameron, Madame Therese Casgrain, C. C. Papineau-Couture, K.C., Gerald Cragg, Rev. Claude deMestral. George V. Ferguson, Gweth-alyn Graham, Madame Constance Garneau, Paul LaFontaine. Arthur Lismer, Dr. J. C. Meakins, John McConnell, Hugh MacKenna, Roger Ouimet, Dr. Wilder Penfield, Leslie Roberts, F. R. Scott, Dr. Baruch Silverman, Dr. D. L. Thompson, Frederick B. Taylor, Gordon Webber, lime. Pauline Donalda. Shawinigan Falls:	D.r. C. N. Crutchfield.
Fredericton:	The Hon. C. H. Blakeny, Dr.
Fletcher Peacock, Dr. F. J. Toole.
' Halifax:	Dr. H. B. Atlee, Donald Crowdis,
Dr. L. J. Donaldson, C. F. Fraser, F. G. Gilkie, Rev. J. W. A. Nicholson, L. Richter, Lloyd Shaw, George A. Smith, L. E. Shaw, George Wilson. Glace Bay:	Freeman Jenkins.
Kentville:	Robert Leslie.
Antigonish:	Alex MacIntyre.
Now I say to you and the house, sir, that I am quite a good sport, and there was no reason to object to the reading of the list. I make no comment about anyone, but it shows how narrow-minded and bigoted some hon. members are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order-


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want any interruptions now. I have been fair enough, and I do not want to be interrupted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege. I did not object to the reading of
the list. My objection was to having it placed on Hansard without being read, and I am glad I made the objection.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman could not object to the reading of the list; therefore it is a good thing he did not do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Jean-François Pouliot: He must read the authors on parliamentary practice, and moreover he must understand them. Perhaps he should read a little less, but he must spend more time in trying to understand the spirit of the law as well as the letter. I have read this list. It contains the names of some well-known communists as well as the names of some other good people who have been led into error by those communists and the people who make themselves the advocates of the communists in the House of Commons.
What is the purpose of this discussion about human rights? What has been the sequence of it? The other day I suggested that the West Indies should be annexed to Canada, and some unpleasant remarks were made about this country by a cabinet minister there. I take the following from the Vancouver Sun:
W. A. Bustmante, minister of communications in the island government and virtual prime minister, said: "I will resist with all influence ' at my command any attempt by Canada for Jamaica to become part of its dominion.
That is a matter of opinion. Then he goes on to say:
The colour question is much more rampant in Canada than in the southern and western United States.
That is untrue. It is obviously untrue. If there had been no discussion of human rights last year, and if we had not set up a committee on human rights that man would not have been led into error by the people who represent Canada as a country where the rights of minorities are not respected, and where there is so much trouble for the coloured people.
This is untrue. But it is one result of that waste of time on so-called human rights. And I will tell something else to my hon. friend the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), who is one of my most coveted colleagues, a man who has the gift of eloquence, who is well read and a good debater. I am not interested in the opinion of Mrs. Roosevelt, the widow of a great man; I am not interested in what is said by Mr. Justice Douglas of the United States-his two heroes -or in what is said by the Marquess of Reading. They may say anything they like. Mrs. Roosevelt and Mr. Justice Douglas speak for
Human Rights


An hon. MEMBER:: Who said that?


Jean-François Pouliot: The leader of the C.C.F. party. Then he referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the dead one, who was much better than the one who is retired, and who is an active Soviet agent. He referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the share of labour.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is that?

Human Rights


Jean-François Pouliot: I mean Fisher. I remember he gave swimming lessons to young girls in the Black sea. The picture appeared in Lije magazine.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who did?


Jean-François Pouliot: Fisher, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. It was a full-page advertisement.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was Inge.


Jean-François Pouliot: He was trying to explain his propaganda. The article appeared in Life magazine. What I say is true. You may not agree with me but you will have to admit the facts. He said that we shall have no freedom until the dignity of man is recognized. I agreed so much with that in principle and in fact that I was the only one to defend the dignity of the working man during the war. I had no supporters when I defended the dignity of the working man in this house, when I argued that he ought to be respected because he was supporting the war effort. Now that the war is over, now that the working man, the labouring man has been abused by the press, by the politicians and by the soapbox orators, they begin to respect his dignity. They respect his dignity because of the next election.
Then he spoke of Hyde park. That is a small corner of the city of London. A small portion of that small corner is used by cranks who stand on soapboxes and say all kinds of silly nonsense. Nobody objects to them and nobody listens to them. A man may say he is the antiChrist and another may say that he is our Lord. They are all crazy people, but they are not so crazy as to advocate silly legislation like this. W'hen I was in London I passed through Hyde park many times and listened to these people. They were all ready to boast of themselves but they never spoke of legislation like this.
Here we have the Jehovah's Witnesses. We all remember what happened in regard to the Jehovah's Witnesses. They interfered with the freedom of others. I do not bother anyone and I do not want to be bothered by anybody; I want to have my peace. If these fellows annoy and disturb people they are acting against the provisions of some by-law or regulation and they are arrested.
Then take the padlock law of the province of Quebec. I can tell you what happened there. Mr. Lapointe was Minister of Justice and he was of the opinion that the law should be repealed. I did not think so and I sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister and told him that he would have to choose between
Cardinal Villeneuve and Tim Buck. That is why that legislation was not disallowed. Cardinal Villeneuve was a greater man than Tim Buck. Cardinal Villeneuve's successor was a chaplain in the army and he did not sign the famous list that I read not long ago. That is history.
Do you not think that reform should start at home? Do you not think that the great trouble about freedom is that very few people think? Most people are ready to accept canned ideas, and the proof of this is in the list I read. A committee on human rights will not change anything that interferes with the freedom of man. What men and women have to do is to be introspective. They must banish the fears they have, the fear of losing patronage, the fear of losing personal advantage, the fear of losing something. Most people abdicate their right to think in order to gain some personal advantage. Everybody knows that is right.
We hear reference to the freedom of the press. I remember when King Edward VIII was being married the English press said that it was self-censored. The people of Canada are self-censored about everything. They are afraid to do anything; they are too shy. Is that liberty? Is that freedom? We need to think. Privately they tell us, "You are right;" openly they tell us, "You are wrong." What could be done by the committee to correct that? What the Canadian people need is a closed retreat where they can examine their souls and realize that reform must -take place within each individual. When the individual reforms himself he will be much happier.
I have not treated this matter in a political way. I believe that all members should unite together to prove that they are not so credulous and so gullible as to swallow silly legislation like this which has been inspired by communists to destroy order in this country. When I see men of the intelligence of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), men of the intelligence of the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell); men of the intelligence of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), men of the intelligence and genius of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King); men of the intelligence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) getting together to do what Fred Rose proved in this house time and time again, I am discouraged.
Will there be a time when those who have great responsibilities in this country realize that the time has come when they have no right to be so credulous or to impose such a waste of time on the members of parliament by the creation of a committee on so-called
Human Rights

human rights which will eventually destroy the rights of all by giving undue privileges to disorderly elements in this country?


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just a few brief observations directed to just one point in this discussion. I shall not be nearly as exciting and certainly not nearly as long as the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot).
I sympathize to some extent with those who say that the mere writing down in legislation of our rights, not only does not extend them but may even confine them. I sympathize with those who go back to the words of the poet and say that they want that freedom which-
. . . slowly broadens down From precedent to precedent;
-and is not contained in statutes.
Nevertheless I think that in these days when we are subjected to such a flood of statutes which are confining our liberties in many ways we can be thankful to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has drawn our attention to these things and who has suggested to us that we had better have a good look at them and not assume that methods and measures which have been sufficient in the past will necessarily be sufficient for the future.
My reason for rising this evening is merely to deal with one aspect of this matter, and that is the international aspect. In particular my purpose is to ask a question of the Minister of Justice, who is a serious man and whose words are taken at their face value as the words of few men are in this house. I want to ask him whether the international aspect of this thing is a serious matter or whether we are just playing with it. If one reads what he said the other evening, and I think he must have been very uneasy in some of the things he said, it seems to me that perhaps unwillingly, perhaps unintentionally, by the reading of the letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) explaining why we had done nothing he slipped into two things that I doubt very much he wished to slip into. This letter says that the reason for the delay, the reason which makes it impossible, I understand, for anything to happen at the next meeting of the international body is that we have gone past the date, and this letter of April 1, 1948, is a letter of delay. There are two reasons given for that delay: first of all, the government wished to refer this matter to parliament, and, further, that there had been no opportunity to discuss it as yet in parliament.

I submit that both of those reasons are trivial reasons. They are really not the kind of reason we ordinarily get from the Minister of Justice for any of the things that he puts forward, for the government have not made us ordinary members feel that they really consider it necessary to come to us very often when they want to do anything. They have rather made us feel that they can go ahead very much on their own and tell us as, if and when they feel like it. Further, I think that anyone would say that if there had been any genuine desire on the part of the government to have this matter come up in parliament some weeks ago it could easily have come up. Surely for that reason, if for no other, we might have deferred the excise taxes bill. That would simply have been a matter of extending its illegality for a few weeks longer, and if the illegality of those taxes did not trouble the government at their inception I do not see why they need have been bothered at the continuance of that illegality for a few weeks longer.
I think we are entitled to know from the Minister of Justice, who is a serious man, whether this thing means anything. I have in my hands the Canadian Bar Review and I have looked at what is proposed to be done. I have looked at the draft international declaration and at the draft international covenant, and no one is likely to say that these are things which can be taken up in a lighthearted manner. They are very difficult things. It is outside our usual field perhaps to do these things, and the only reason I suppose we would contemplate doing them at all is when we reflect on what has happened in this world we live in during the last thirty years. I was thinking today of an incident that happened, which those who have had the misfortune to be as old as I will recall, in 1913 at Zabern. It is almost impossible to believe that a single act of brutality committed by a Prussian officer in Alsace could have rocked the whole world. I will read in a sentence what happened:
In November, 1913, Zabern was the scene of a fracas which caused great bitterness in France and assumed the proportions of an international incident. A German lieutenant named Forstner grossly insulted Alsatian recruits, and a street riot followed. Twenty-nine persons were arrested. On December 2, Forstner caused the arrest of a boy at Zettweiler and struck him with his sabre. The affair led to a vote of censure on Bethmann-Hollweg in the Reichstag, but the military party secured the acquittal of Forstner on appeal to the war council.
Bethmann-Hollweg was the German Chancellor, I believe, at the time, and the vote of censure took place in the Reichstag, in what was then a real parliament. The only reason

Human Rights
I have read that is that we should remind ourselves that thirty-five years ago in this world it was possible for a single act of brutality committed in Alsace, then under German occupation, so to exercise public opinion throughout the whole world that it produced a crisis in the German government, and it is hardly too much to say that it shook the world. It seems almost incredible, almost like a fairy tale, because today you could have thousands of people killed and it would not shake anything.
It is interesting also to recall in Churchill's book on the life of his great ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, that in the eighteenth century even war was partly civilized. The book says that in the eighteenth century the nations in peacetime did each other as much good as possible, and in wartime they did each other as little harm as possible.
It seems like a fairy tale. The only reason I mention it is that we should remind ourselves that we have moved back into the dark ages. That is where we are. and if there is anything that can possibly be done in the international sphere to serve mankind we should not regard it as a joke. It is not a joke. This is the most desperately urgent thing that could ever engage our attention, and so I ask the Minister of Justice, who is a serious man, whether he takes this matter seriously. We should not have it brought to us at all if it is not taken seriously, and if it is taken seriously we ought seriously to consider it.
The task is almost superhuman; I admit that. It may be that we should just say we cannot do it and that we should consider it no more; but before we say that I suggest that we should remind ourselves that if we do not do it, if we do not at least try to do it, sooner or later I think the third world war will come unless we can prevent it by some kind of vital association which we must take seriously. You will remember what happened to the league of nations. Why did it fail? Because people were bored with peace. They did not like peace. Peace is a dull thing. People get excited only in wartime. You could not get anyone to work for the league of nations society except longhaired cranks like myself, people who were regarded as queer people. We were told that people are combative, that they always have been, and that a second world war was sure to come. A lot of people were saying that who had never done anything themselves in the first world war. Now we have had a second world war, and many think we are to have a third world war. I do not know whether this thing is any good at all, but I think we are at least entitled to hear from the Minister of Justice whether he thinks it is a good thing.


Mr. DAVID CROLL (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) attempted to put on record a long list of names, and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) succeeded in putting them on the record. I think in fairness, not so much to the three members of the house whose names were included and who can look after themselves, but to those who are not members of the house, the country ought to know exactly what these people subscribed to, and for that reason I am going to complete the record by quoting from their statement in support of a bill of rights:
The protection of the liberties of the subject has from time immemorial been the historic responsibility of parliament.
The constitution of Canada, of which the B.N.A. Act is the principal written part, is a constitution "similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom," and embraces by implication but nowhere expressly sets forth in binding and written form such fundamental freedoms as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press and association, nor does it afford protection for the individual against arbitrary arrest, seizure and excessive bail, and other like civil liberties and human rights.
Recent events in Canada and throughout the world have demonstrated that it is desirable that such rights be stated with the utmost clarity in the written constitution of Canada, namely, in the B.N.A. Act, in order that all men and women in Canada shall know them and shall feel that their rights are secure from interference by legislative or administrative action, through the protection of the courts.
We therefore urge that the parliament of Canada should by resolution seek an amendment to the B.N.A. Act, restraining the parliament of Canada and provincial legislatures from making or enforcing any laws abrogating the aforementioned liberties and, in particular, any laws interfering with freedom of religion, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and organization, protection against excessive bail, protection of minorities, protection against cruel and unusual punishment and protection against arbitrary and abusive deprivation of life, liberty or property, and providing against the exile of Canadian citizens, establishing the above rights and the right to the franchise, to habeas corpus, to a fair trial with the assistance of counsel, all without discrimination as to race, sex, language or religion.
Parliament has recently approved the charter of the united nations which declares it to be amongst the purposes of the united nations to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
It would be particularly timely when recent events have left in the minds of our people a vivid sense of the dangers of totalitarianism and the repression of civil liberties, and when the parliament of Canada has recently defined Canadian citizenship, that a solemn and explicit declaration of these fundamental freedoms hitherto implicit in our traditions, should now' be enacted as part of our constitution. These rights would be in addition to, and in no way
Human Rights

in derogation from existing minority rights already set forth in the B.N.A. Act.
We urge that the members of parliament of all parties should seize this opportunity to establish a bill of rights for all Canadians.
That is the statement which was subscribed to by the men and women whose names were placed on record earlier this evening. I for one, in common with these people, believe that there is need for a charter, for a bill of rights. That is not only self-evident, I think it is overwhelming. We are living today in a time of great stress. In some parts of the world it is almost hysteria. Here at home, and abroad, men are being driven to unreasonable and excessive acts, almost to the point where they besmirch the very cause they believe in. No matter where you look, from every corner of the world, Bogota, India, Palestine, yes, in Canada, we receive reports of almost meaningless violence. We Canadians have become accustomed, yes, I think we have become indifferent to acts of violence in distant lands, and last week we had occasion suddenly to find ourselves startled from our complacency and deeply disturbed by danger signals at home. We should be all disturbed by the undemocratic behaviour of the students in the city of Windsor. No Canadian can condone such an attack on civil liberties. A mob is a mob, whether it is in Canada or in Bogota; and for us to close our eyes to certain goings on seems to me an incentive to others who are tougher than these students to see if they cannot try it, since it seems to be easy to get away with; and one excess leads to another. It is obvious in the world today that there is a division between the attackers and the defenders, and the battlelines on ideological grounds are already being drawn.
We in Canada have always been well aware of the dangers of the extreme right and the dangers of the extreme left. We know that the extreme right led us to one war. Now the extreme left has at least the possibilities of another world conflict; and to us both extremes are hateful. We want to pursue the middle course. We have always wanted the course of freedom; but the middle course, the course of freedom has some obvious deficiencies, not the least of which is the lack of a formal instrument of freedom, a bill of rights. I am familiar with the two schools of thought who have been enjoying an academic field day on the subject for the past few years. One side wants a bill of rights written into the constitution. The other side says that in the last analysis civil rights are the result of an informed and intelligent public opinion and ' that they cannot be guaranteed by putting

them into a statute. Both sides, if left to themselves, will probably be arguing happily for the next twenty years.
The point I wish to make is that a bill of rights is not an academic subject for debating societies, but a very real and a very live one and very much needed by Canadians today. There is no fundamental law in Canada guaranteeing civil liberties; there is no fundamental law in Canada prohibiting the exercise of state power in the denial of civil liberties. Ours is a negative freedom. Free speech, for instance, is in the position where it is not forbidden; but a negative freedom is not enough. There are amongst us many minorities, racial, religious, economic and political minorities, who are profoundly upset at the present state of freedom in Canada. They see a growing spirit of intolerance manifesting itself in not just isolated cases here and there, but in mass action against whole groups; and they know full well that if discrimination can be practised against one group with impunity, it can be directed against any group.
We are not going to legislate tolerance in this country. I well remember the days when we tried to enforce temperance by daw and it was a dismal failure. In the same way prejudice may masquerade as protecting the Canadian way of life, or a crusade against reactionism or communism or any other ism with which the majority happens to disagree and is out of sympathy with. Yet defining the limits of civil liberties by law would not be an empty gesture, as one hon. member intimated. There is a great need today for a formal re-statement of the fundamental principles of individual freedom. The people of Canada want to know what their rights are. They have the right to know what their rights are. The objection raised is that this house is not competent to deal with a dominion bill of rights. We are told that it would not be constitutional. Without getting into a discussion of the constitutional law, let me say that I do not think the question is as simple as all that. It is true that, under section 92, subsection 13 of the British North America Act relates to property and civil rights in the province. But is this provision meant to cover what we understand by civil liberties? I would recall that a few years ago, in the reference re Alberta legislation- the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to it; 1938 S.C.R., page XOO-the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that federal legislation was authoritative in relation to public debate and discussion.
I quite agree that it is difficult to say offhand just what the position is. But the con-

Human Rights
stitutional difficulties are no reason for sloughing off this whole thing. It is a simple matter to determine what the constitutional position is. If the Department of Justice is unable or unwilling to give us an authoritative opinion that is strong enough for us to proceed on, then the committee if given the power-and they should be given that power-can direct a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is quite obvious that constitutionality is a condition precedent to a bill of rights. That being the case, we ought to determine the position with the least possible delay.
It seems to me that in any issue of general public policy, the government is remiss in its duty if it fails to give leadership. This is true in regard to the matter of a bill of rights and also in regard to a subject which is closely allied to it, and which has been under discussion here today, namely, the matter of communism in Canada. It is fair to say that we continue to sit on the fence in this vital issue long after Britain, Australia and South Africa have declared themselves unequivocally. The question in the minds of a great many people in Canada today is this: Is communism to be legal or illegal? Is our bill of rights to have in it a clause denying the freedom to be a communist? These are questions which we shall have to decide before very much longer.
I have had considerable experience in dealing with domestic communism. I have more of them in my riding than there are in any other riding in the Dominion of Canada. I have met them, dealt with them and defeated them, first municipally, then provincially and finally federally. over a period of nearly twenty years. My formula has always been a simple one. I like my communists out in the open so that I know who they are, where they are and what they stand for. I have done them in on every occasion that I have come to grips with them. I give that information to the house for what it is worth.
Already in this country groups of people here and there seem to be acting as though the decision to outlaw them has already been made. The very fact that they are acting in that way does not take away from us the responsibility; it only increases the responsibility. Until we are prepared to guarantee the freedom of the individual in a broadly conceived bill of rights, supported by all the ethical and social sanctions that our society as a whole can command, we shall go ill-armed into the great ideological conflict that is only beginning to make itself felt at the present time. The danger in Canada is still small, in my opinion; still just a few isolated happenings which the majority of us deplore. But it is
something which can become embedded in our national consciousness. The way to prevent that from happening is to act now, because we cannot sit this one out. The people of Canada are looking to us for guidance, for leadership and for reassurance. It is our duty to express to them the canons of individual freedom on which our society is based.
I said I felt that the need for a charter of civil liberties is overwhelming and self-evident. The mechanics of the thing can be worked out if there is a will to do so. What we do now may avoid the need for having to do something much more drastic in the days, months, and years ahead.
I like to recall John Stuart Mill's words in his famous book on liberty, where he said that the worth of a state, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals who compose it; and that a state which dwarfs its men in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands, even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville) :: The resolution before the house, Mr. Speaker, embraces both our national and international fields. In the international field the need for a code of human rights and fundamental freedoms is indeed of immediate and urgent importance. However, it will be recognized at once that the matter of the establishment and the enforcement of such a code falls within the purview of international organizations. It follows, therefore, that Canada's utmost contribution can be made in this matter by advocating and supporting the establishment and the enforcement of such a code. Obviously the extent of Canada's influence at international councils in this and other international problems will be proportionate only to her military, economic and diplomatic strength.
I was hoping to have an opportunity to discuss the international aspect of this subject, but in view of the immensity of this field I must postpone its discussion until some other time. On this occasion I intend to limit my discussion to human rights and fundamental freedoms as these rights and freedoms affect Canadian citizens within our own country. I think it will be generally agreed by. most democratically minded Canadians that human rights and fundamental freedoms are the basis upon which our constitution, our form of government and our institutions have been built. It is my view that, even though there may be some shortcomings and imperfections in our political and organizational structure, which admittedly could stand improvement.
Human Rights

nevertheless no loyal Canadian would want to see our concept of life replaced by any other advocated in the world today.
It is with this consideration in mind that we should be discussing the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms as far as their application in Canada is concerned. However, in line with what is being proposed in the international field by the nations of the western world it may be advisable for us to review and improve some of the laws in our own country. To use but one example, I would point out that in the economic field human rights and fundamental freedoms have never been known to all our people. In other words, the economic freedom which all our people should enjoy is measured, under the present financial system, by the amount of money they can afford to spend. No one will deny that there is plenty of room for improvement in this regard. We know, too, there are numerous other things that cry out for improvement. However, the matters I have mentioned have not been the central theme of the many advocates of human rights and fundamental freedoms; it was something else that brought on the alarm. What is more, as far as human rights and fundamental freedoms are concerned, everything seemed to be running quite smoothly until Mr. Igor Gouzenko appeared on the scene with his famous bundle of documents. Now and then there might have been casual references by jurists, scholars and legislators to instances where our laws should be improved, but there was definitely no general alarm about this matter. Even during the war years, when the Canadian government did many things that revealed poor judgment or lack of knowledge in dealing with certain important matters, the general public recognized that those were abnormal times, and in view of that fact no particular protest was raised by anyone. As a matter of fact, as time went by, some of those blunders were corrected, others were forgiven and still others are being lived down by persons who were thus affected.
It was not these things that brought about the crisis in the matter of civil liberties. It was not these things that brought into the fold of the civil liberties branches many well-meaning but misled Canadian citizens. It was the clamouring of persons who were selling out the freedoms of the Canadian people that brought about this alarm, the demand for wider freedom so that they could continue their work of treason undisturbed. Yes, it was not until Gouzenko forced those famous

documents upon this government and a number of suspected persons were rounded up and detained for questioning, that human rights and fundamental freedoms began to receive so much attention. Surely it must be plain by now to most Canadians, whom this spy ring was serving and what were the intentions of the people involved.
Ah, but the critics of the procedure of the government in dealing with this problem would say, "Prosecute them in a court of law". The critics of the government in this regard may have a point there; but I wonder what procedure they would have followed if they had been in the position of responsibility, faced with the unprecedented situation that existed at the time of the unfortunate incident, when cells of agents were discovered to be in the service of a foreign country, agents who had spread their networks into various phases of activity in this country. Would they have taken a course of delayed action by providing an opportunity for persons held for questioning to get together and agree to withhold certain information? After studying the evidence carefully, it appears to me that the matter of the prosecution of suspected persons was of secondary importance as far as that situation was concerned. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the most important factor entering into this whole matter was to learn what information and how much was transmitted to interested parties. This consideration would appear to me to override everything else; for, after all, there are no torture chambers in Canada; no third degree methods are used here; and the slight inconvenience which may have been suffered by a few persons who kept company with dangerous characters may serve as a warning to others not to fall into the same trap.
Perhaps those learned in the law could show that I am mistaken on this point. They might be able to propose a method by which any such crisis could be avoided in future. If they can suggest a sound procedure for dealing with such matters I shall give them my support; but I have yet to hear any sound procedure suggested. I am convinced that the Canadian public would lend their support to any suggestion which would have the effect of improving our laws; but it must also be kept in mind that any such improvement should provide proper protection for this nation against treachery, deceit and treason. At no time should our laws be fashioned in such a way as to make it convenient for foreign agents to use them as a protective cloak for espionage activities.

Human Rights
In this connection I might mention that last Friday evening, after this debate was adjourned,
I met a Progressive Conservative member outside this chamber; and before we parted he made a casual statement which I consider profoundly true. He said, "Any person who needs a bill of rights to hide behind is a poor type of citizen to have in this country". There is much wisdom in that statement. If I may go on from there, in the report of the royal commission on the espionage activities we find the following passage:
The evidence has revealed the existence of an organization constituting at least a threat to the safety and interests of the state, as evidenced by the fact that some witnesses holding strategic positions have made the significant statement under oath that they had a loyalty which took priority over the loyalty owed by them to their own country, and for that reason they acted as they did, and would unquestionably have continued so to act had they not been detected.
It is a terrible state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, when some Canadians say they owe a higher loyalty to some outside power, in preference to their own country. The shocking reality of this whole situation lies in the fact that these are not simple, agitated folk who, through ignorance or economic conditions, parrot what someone else has said or make threatening remarks to make themselves more important. These young people had better than average opportunities, as their educational standings and their preferred positions indicated.
Canada and the Canadian people have been kind to these persons and placed them in positions of trust. These are the type of persons who normally would be expected to provide leadership to their less fortunate brothers. But what do we find? It is clear from the evidence that Canada and the democratic concept of life is not their ideal. The ideal which was sold to them was the nazi-fascist dictatorship, wrapped up in a red coat. While this was going on, such men as John Robert Osborn of Winnipeg, Manitoba, gave their lives in defending Canada. I might add that John Robert Osborn was awarded the Victoria Cross posthumously for his gallantry at Hong Kong. He left five orphans and a widow. I should mention also that in addition to his service in the recent war he also served in the first great war.
I would suggest, therefore, that when we are discussing this subject of civil liberties we should think of Osborn and others who have given their lives on the battlefields so that the torch of freedom may continue to burn in Canada.
A press report on this heroic role played by John Osborn says:
Time and again he picked up flying Jap grenades being hurled at his position and threw them back at the enemy with reckless disregard for his own safety. Finally a grenade fell too far away, and he had only time to smother it. It exploded just as he covered it, and he was killed. His body stopped the flying shrapnel from seriously wounding any of his companions.
In fairness to our fighting men, and particularly in fairness to the memory of those who have died in battle, we owe it to their memory and to their widows and children to stop all those who would sell out the freedoms of this country. There is no room for soft pedalling or appeasement in dealing with treachery.
Last Friday night the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) introduced a resolution dealing with this subject of human rights and fundamental freedoms. His statement, so far as any human rights bill for Canada is concerned, was significant. It was significant because he had no definite proposition to make.
First, the minister read the resolution into the record. He then reviewed the dates on which last year's committee on human rights sat, and said that it held eight meetings and made four reports to the House of Commons and to the Senate. He then reviewed what was done in regard to the international bill of rights. He told us that all provincial governments and law deans in Canadian universities were invited to submit their views on this matter, and particularly with regard to the division of power as between provincial and federal governments. The minister told us also that some of the provinces and some of the law deans replied to the communications; others just acknowledged receipt, and some did not even bother to reply.
Finally the minister told us that he had no bill to present to the house; but since an undertaking was given last year that the committee would be set up this year, the minister wanted to keep his word. Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but agree with the minister; and I must say I am surprised he was able to say as much as he did on the matter; for, after all, what else could he say?
So far as a bill of rights for Canada is concerned, no one has submitted a definite proposition. No doubt a bill dealing with this matter can be brought in, but only after an exhaustive study by competent jurists and other men interested in this subject. It is a task, however, which requires considerable
Human Rights

research, and it will take considerable time to complete it. The matter must also be settled with the provinces.
So the minister could hardly do other than he did when he failed to promise anything on this matter. I feel I should add this, that the main reason the minister and the government placed the resolution before the house was to silence the demand of civil liberties associations and, when the committee on human rights is set up, to throw the matter into the lap of that committee.
In view of what I have said thus far, some hon. members may think I am speaking in defence of government policy in dealing with this matter. But nothing could be farther from the truth. It is my view that the government should be given the severe verbal thrashing which they deserve. But they should be taken to task on another count. When the spy ring was uncovered I was sure that the chief spokesmen of the opposition parties would have the government over a barrel. Here was a situation where able young Canadians occupying positions of trust betrayed their country. Here was a situation which developed as a result of the government's lackadaisical policy. Here \yas a situation where the government appeased communists at every turn, and in fact entered into an unofficial arrangement during the Grey North by-election and the general election in 1945. Here was a situation where communists were actually treated as a privileged class in Canada.
Was the government not aware that, while we were being entertained by the various friendship leagues, the Trojan horse was being ushered in? Prominent Canadians and government representatives took a leading part in these powwows. And I might say this affair did not stop there. What is more, a foreign citizen had to beg the government and to plead with them to take the documents and to do something about the situation that developed in Canada.
But the government told him to go away. Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable why the opposition critics did not take the government to task on this score. But what do we find? Instead of being alarmed about the danger, the opposition critics and other civil liberties champions lashed out at the government for inconveniencing a number of persons who were held for questioning. Evidence of conflicting loyalties, evidence of infiltration of agents in a foreign service, evidence of the workings of fifth column groups in Canada did not worry the champions of civil liberties. They were concerned about the complaints of detained persons. Let me emphasize that civil liberties
must and should be protected, but the champions of civil liberties must also admit that by doing so we must not place the liberty of the entire nation in jeopardy. Under foreign domination we would have no say about civil liberties; or about anything else for that matter. In other words, our civil liberties'and our national liberties should both be protected. But to champion civil liberties at the risk of losing our national liberty is to render a disservice to Canada and to the Canadian people. I say to the champions of civil liberties that at this stage of history the struggle is not only for the extension of civil liberties; it is also a struggle, first of all, for our own national survival.
Does it not seem strange to us that this alarm for civil liberties can be found only in Canada, in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in France and in a few other countries in western Europe? But what about the civil liberties in Yugoslavia, in Roumania, in Bulgaria, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, and above all, what about human rights and civil liberties in the U.S.S.R.?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker. I want to put myself clearly on the side of those who believe that we should have a bill of rights for Canadians. I noted the last question of the previous speaker when he asked why it was that in countries like Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom there is the greatest amount of concern about civil rights. I feel that that is highly significant. What it means is that in those countries where we enjoy a certain amount of freedom we know its value and we want it extended and guaranteed and made secure for all our people.
The only reason I chose to intervene in this debate-after all, the case that I might make was made so much better this afternoon by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell)-was because of what happened this afternoon when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) raised a point of order with respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker). I felt that the points raised by the Minister of Justice were technically correct, but I indicated at that time that I was in wholehearted support of the substance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I suggested to him or to some of his colleagues that it would be desirable to have another amendment moved in a form that might be in order so that we could pursue this project of having the whole question referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Human Rights
I consider that the government should have taken more responsibility in this matter. It seems to me that the government should have drafted a bill of rights, brought it before parliament and let us deal with it in the house and in committee. As part of the consideration of such a bill of rights introduced by the government, arrangements could have been made for it to be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, either before or after its final enactment. However, the government has not taken that course, but has chosen rather to throw the matter into the lap of parliament and in turn has asked parliament to put it into the hands of a committee.
That being the case, we do not have the right under the rules of this house to instruct the government to do anything by way of making a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, but I am convinced that we do have the right to make sure that the special committee which is being established has the right to make recommendations, if they so choose, calling for a reference to the supreme court. As indicated by the hon. member for Lake Centre this afternoon-I want to make it clear that in part I am taking precisely the language he used in the amendment that was ruled out of order-there is, on the one hand, the possibility of referring to the Supreme Court of Canada hypothetical questions as to the extent to which there is federal jurisdiction over matters relating to the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and so on, but there is also the possibility of asking that there be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada a draft bill of rights.
I contend that the committee should have the power, without making it mandatory, to discuss these two ways of attacking the problem. The committee should have the power of making recommendations, either that such questions be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada or that a draft will be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. Since the government did not introduce such a bill, I suggest that it is up to the committee either to decide the questions to be referred or the nature of the draft bill to be referred. Accordingly I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke), the amendment which I suggested this afternoon during the discussion on the point of order, as follows:
That the following paragraph be inserted between paragraph three and paragraph four of the proposed resolution:
"That the committee shall have power to recommend (a) that there be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada such questions as in the opinion of the committee are necessary to determine to what extent the preservation of the
fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly, aryl the maintenance of the constitutional safeguards of the individual, are matters of federal jurisdiction; or (b) that there be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada a draft bill of rights, containing such provisions as in the opinion of the committee should be included therein, to determine whether or not it is within the powers of the federal parliament to enact such a bill of rights for the Canadian people."
I am satisfied that that amendment is in order. It does not do one thing which the amendment proposed this afternoon did, namely, put the responsibility back on the government. The simple fact is that under the rules we cannot do that. But this does give the committee the green light to make recommendations along the lines suggested in the amendment.
I shall not take the time of the house to say anything more, either on the amendment or on the general subject now before us except to say that I feel we should do everything we can in this country to maintain and extend all the freedoms we now enjoy, political, civil and religious. Freedom of thought and speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, yes; but let us remember that far too many human beings live lives blighted and dwarfed by economic oppression. Man will not really be free until economic tyranny is no more. In my view that is the job of political democracy today, to achieve economic freedom for all.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka), and the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansel!). I am sorry that the latter was not able to conclude his speech, and for a few minutes I shall endeavour to carry on where he left off.
In considering any policy I always like to find out if I can the motive behind the policy. For instance, in a certain form of heart trouble a little strychnine may save a man's life, while in another form of heart trouble a little strychnine might mean instant death. So before I support any remarks on the virtues of strychnine in treating heart disease, I should like to know just who is to administer the strychnine and just what his motives are.
The hon. member for Macleod said, if I remember correctly, that there are just two kinds of people in the Civil Liberties Association; there are traitors, and there are the stooges, the dupes. I agree with that, and I go a little farther and say with regard to this motion that there are just two kinds of people in Canada. There are those whose first loyalty
Human Rights

is to Canada, and there are those whose first loyalty is to internationalism. On several occasions in this house in the past I have warned people against the dangers of internationalism to our Canadian freedoms. For instance, five years ago I made this statement which I have since quoted in the house:
The defeat of German arms is certain, but the plots of international finance and communism, their plans for world control by the surrender of national sovereignty to world government and police force, have become a greater threat to our liberties as Christians and democrats than the disaster at Dunkirk.
I was severely taken to task for making that statement, but in the light of what has happened since and the present condition of the world I think what I said then was more than justified. This session I quoted a statement made some years ago by the present Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Right Hon. Clement Attlee, who, according to a statement I have read, said in 1934:
We have absolutely abandoned any idea of national loyalty and we are deliberately putting a world order before loyalty to our own country.
Then five years ago this month I quoted from and denounced a statement made in this country by Mr. B. K. Sandwell, whose name I think was mentioned this evening by the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: And I said, Oh, ho!


Norman Jaques: Mr. Sandwell's statement was this. He advocated a supra-national authority, with power to settle questions of immigration, natural resources, the treatment of minorities, repudiation of debts, finance, et cetera; to bring about Canada's acceptance of a new authority it would be necessary to bring all the people to a diminution of their loyalty to the crown by substituting a new loyalty to an authority wider than Canada, wider than the British commonwealth of nations or of all the democracies together. Well, Mr. Speaker, chickens have a habit of coming home to roost and Mr. Attlee now finds it necessary to do what he can to clean out the communists not only in the civil service but in the House of Commons itself.
I w'ell remember, and I think it was mentioned by the hon. member for Vegreville this evening, that in the report of the royal commission on espionage the main reason given for the otherwise inexplicable behaviour of young responsible Canadians in betraying their country was mainly the teaching which they had received that they owe a superior loyalty to some international ideal or ism.
We come now to civil liberties. I think I might quote Mr. Churchill on civil rights. As I said when I started, I look at the

motive of any policy. Speaking of communism in his book "Great Contemporaries", Mr. Churchill said:
Communism is not only a creed. It is a plan of campaign. The anatomy of discontent and revolution has been studied in every phase and aspect. 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.
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 from confusion must be exploited.
When I see the names of many in these civil rights organizations I ask myself always, what is the motive behind this agitation for civil rights? I am not sure, but I believe I am right in saying that the ultimate purpose of this bill on human rights is this. First of all, the rights of the provinces with regard to civil rights are to be placed with the dominion government. I am not accusing the Liberal government of this. This is what I have gathered from some of the speakers this afternoon. The rights of the provinces are to be gathered together, so to speak, and placed with the dominion government; then they are to be transferred to the united nations. That is as I understand it. When I look at the record of the united nations all I can say is that if it inspires anybody to trust his liberties to it I do not think he can value his liberty very highly. Look at what has happened to liberty since the united nations was formed. Look at Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and so on. They have all lost their civil liberties, and what has the united nations been able to do about the matter?
We now come to a question which is still alive. I am not going into the Palestine question tonight. I mention it because it illustrates what I have said about the united nations and fundamental rights. Not only have I spoken on this particular question in various parts of Canada and in the United States, but I have discussed it with leading Zionists and with many of the Arab leaders. In the last few weeks I have read eveiything that I have been able to lay my hands on with regard to the united nations organization and partition. I may say that I have read the reports and the columnists of the United States and Canadian press, and so far as the Arabs are concerned I have yet to read one

Human Rights
reference to their fundamental human rights. If anybody can show me that I am wrong I shall be very much obliged.
What happened when the administration of the United States found it necessary to reverse their policy of partition? As I say, I have read all that I can obtain on the reaction in the United States and in this country, not only among the people but among members of the senate and of congress, and it all boils down to this: the only effect or the only notice that was taken of the reversal of partition was the possible results upon their political futures. For instance, President Truman was said to have killed his chance of election this year as president because he had lost the Jewish vote. The democrats immediately rushed in to say that it was a disaster; that it would mean the end of the united nations, and the Republicans said the same thing. The only reaction to the reversal of partition in the United States was simply a political reaction as it might affect the political chances of the various parties. I am only repeating what I have read in dozens of United States papers, that the future of the Arab people and, if you like, of the Moslems, depends, not on any question of fundamental rights but upon the Jewish vote in the United States.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member surely does not mean that.


Norman Jaques: Of course I mean it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: God help you.


Norman Jaques: God help you. Let me say
to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) that if he denies that, then I say he denies what has been said by every paper and commentator in the United States.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am sorry; but I deny it absolutely.


Norman Jaques: So do the communist papers; I will admit that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Thank you
for putting that in.


Norman Jaques: That is quite right; the communists and fellow travellers, and they are to be found in all parties.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Even in Great Britain, which never voted for partition.


Norman Jaques: I know. I spoke against partition in this house and outside it, even before it was passed by the united nations. If the hon. member for Calgary West thinks I am talking of things about which I do not know anything, let him rise in his place when I have finished and say whether he approves
or disapproves the zionist action in Palestine. I have condemned it for a good many years now, but I have not heard anybody else in this house do so.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Condemned what?


Norman Jaques: Condemned political Zionism. I mentioned motives-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Now you are at something you know something about.


Norman Jaques: I mentioned motives.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was that Moses or
motives?


Norman Jaques: Motives. Somebody mentioned racial and religious discrimination. There are two ways of looking at that. It is a well-known fact that no people are so keen on banning that discrimination as are the communists. It is easy to see why. Suppose you pass a .aw-I am not a lawyer, and I do not intend to talk in a legal way-to make illegal what is called racial and religious discrimination. Suppose I am an employer of labour, and that a man comes to me for a job. I know that man, we will say, is a communist; he might happen to be a Jew or anybody else, for that matter; for instance, he might be a Mormon or a Doukhobor. But if I refused to employ him because he is a communist, it would be a criminal offence; he could immediately accuse me of racial discrimination. That sort of law would open the door to the communists and it would be almost impossible to deal with them.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Under what law could you be prosecuted?


Norman Jaques: I said if there was a law-


Arthur Leroy Smith: I beg the hon. member's pardon. May I ask him a question? As I understood him, he said he could be prosecuted because he refused to employ a man who was a communist. Under what law could that be done?


Norman Jaques: It was a hypothetical case. I said that were such a law passed-and certainly some members this afternoon said that in their opinion such a law should be passed- I could be prosecuted. I say that such a law would be the finest shield for the penetration of communists into any organization.


Mr. HARTT:: There is such a law in New York and in Manitoba. Has anything like that happened there?
Human Rights


Norman Jaques: Not yet, so far as I know.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I say that I misunderstood the hon. member who has the floor. I understood that he said there was such a law. I did not hear him correctly.


Norman Jaques: Thank you.


Maurice Hartt: There is the same law in Ontario, and nothing of the kind has happened.


Norman Jaques: These things do not happen all at once. There is no hurry.


Maurice Hartt: No, no.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take your time.


Maurice Hartt: We will wait.


Norman Jaques: Speaking of internationalism and the real purpose and motive of internationalism, I have made a few notes on the social credit analysis of the hidden motives behind this drive for internationalism. It is an essential strategy for world dictatorship. The central strategy is to gain the monopoly of credit and of world propaganda so as systematically and continuously to spread false doctrines and to exploit the inevitable confusion resulting from putting such false doctrines into practice. This exploitation takes the form of centralizing every kind of control, the creation of greater and greater monopolies leading to the police state, and to the final step of world government by world cartels controlled by international financiers. Some of the meshes of this international net are UNRRA, Bretton Woods, emergency food board and UNESCO, by which nations surrender control of their credit, food supplies and propaganda; in other words, a world cartel of credits, propaganda and food to be used as sanctions against any recalcitrant countries.
National sovereignty is an obstacle in the way of these international socialists and would-be dictators. An inner ring of internationalists, extending to many countries, repudiate loyalty to the country of their adoption; they give their loyalty to their international ring and its ideals. Through their control of financial policy they are able to exert a controlling influence over the governments of the country in which they live. Their plan is to replace national with corporate government, the control being within the international ring. This is the empire of international cartels, with the international financier as the emperor. With them war is a means to an end. War is "the pursuit of policy by other means." These internationalists work to a plan. Let me name some of them. Mond sets up a chemical cartel linked with Germany and America. Samuel

recommends state ownership of coal. Isaacs (Lord Reading) negotiates a war debt settlement with Wall Street, binding the British to undisclosed terms. Sieff sets up political and economic planning, using the war as an excuse to overcome opposition. Cassel finances the London school of economics to train the bureaucracy for the future world socialist state. Laski preaches class-that is civil-war. The state assumes the ownership of coal and other real assets, and international finance involves the state in dollar debt. The socialists bankrupt the state, and the international financiers foreclose on the physical assets. In the meantime the people, forced into the factories under the slogan "Work or want", are controlled by quotas and ration books, ticketed and dossiered by social security.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a brief but, I believe, absolutely true picture of the real motives behind this drive for international government, and the surrender of national sovereignty to international control.


Eric Bowness McKay: Mr. Speaker, the purpose for which the committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms has been set up is extremely laudable. It is to consider the manner in which the obligation assumed by Canada as a signatory to the united nations charter may be implemented. It will also have the job. if I understand the terms of reference correctly, of studying and recommending ways and means of preserving in Canada these human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It is extremely important in this changing world that Canada set her own house in order. The challenge of totalitarianism makes this imperative if our democracy is to continue to flourish. I consider it important to recognize that communism is not a disease in the strictest sense of the word. It is held up by its proponents as a way of life infinitely superior to the democracy to which we have subscribed our allegiance. As Canadians we must meet that challenge in the most effective way possible. We must prove to the world that democracy is a better way of life than that which is the basis of the Russian system.
I cannot conceive of laws and regulations preventing the growth of an idea such as communism; and I must agree with the many people who hold that you cannot destroy ideas with guns. It has been tried before with but one result, the martyrdom of a cause. But I do believe that the setting up of a new social and economic order based upon the dignity of the individual can accomplish the ends desired by all democratically minded people. Canadian boys in the last war died to establish a new

Human Rights
world order based on human equality, respect for the individual by reason of his humanity, justice in every sphere of life without any barriers of colour, race or creed. Our duty as legislators is, as I see it, to bring to fruition those very principles and ideals our sons hoped to realize in the post-war world.
The united nations has made considerable progress in achieving that goal. Not the least among those achievements is the adoption of a draft of a world bill of rights issued from Geneva on December 16 last by the united nations commission on human rights which, when adopted, will become binding upon all the signatories, including Canada. The clauses in the text are as follows, and to me they appear comprehensive and to cover adequately the field of human relations:
1.	Everyone is entitled to life, liberty and equal protection under the law.
2.	Everyone has the right to freedom of information, sipeech and expression; to freedom of worship, conscience and belief; to freedom of assembly and of association, and freedom to petition his government and the united nations.
3.	No one shall be subjected to unreasonable interference with his privacy, home, correspondence or reputation. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
4.	There shall be liberty to move freely from one place to another within the state; to emigrate and to seek asylum from persecution.
5.	No one shall be held in slavery or involuntary servitude. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman punishment or indignity.
6.	No one Shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. Anyone arrested has the right to be promptly informed of the charges against him and to trial within a reasonable time or to be released.
7.	Everyone in the determination of his rights and obligations is entitled to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal and to the aid of counsel. No one shall be convicted or punished for crime except after public trial pursuant to law in effect at the time of the commission of the act charged. Everyone regardless of office or status is subject to the rule of the law.
8.	Everyone has the right to a nationality. Everyone has the right to take an effective part in his government, directly or through his representatives, and to participate in elections, free and by secret ballot.
9.	Everyone has the right to a decent living, to work and advance his well-being; to health, education and social security. There shall be equal opportunity for all to participate in the economic and cultural life of the community.
10.	Everyone everywhere in the world is entitled to the human rights and fundamental freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction as to race, sex. language or religion. The full exercise of these rights requires recognition of the rights of others and protection by 1 aw of the freedom, general welfare and security of all.
These are fine and noble ideals and, as I see it, it is practical Christianity. But the
mere acceptance of this bill of rights is not enough. Everyone must be prepared to do everything in his power to see that the clauses are implemented not only in Canada but everywhere in the world. That is why the setting up of this committee is so important.
Democracy must be realistic, if it is to meet the problems of our day and age. If there are problems of racial and religious inequities to be solved, let the problems be met now. Putting them off until another day, and hoping that something will happen to solve these problems will never take care of the situation. Delay is dangerous particularly in this modern world of ideologies. People who are victims of discrimination of any kind are fertile soil in which the seed of communism will flourish.
I feel that this committee not only can do a great deal to solve the problem of discrimination but may serve as well as an instrument through which problems of human rights as they affect the Indian in Canada, Chinese, Japanese, negroes and certain religious denominations may be placed squarely before the Canadian people. These are all important problems and must be solved. It may not always be politically expedient to grapple with such questions, but postponement of the evil day will not lessen but will increase the danger to this country as a democracy, if we fail to settle these differences within our social and economic structure. To talk about the brotherhood of man is not good enough. Envy, malice and hatred have all entered our civil and, in some cases, our personal lives, because of senseless inequalities which make barriers between one Canadian and another. Natural inequalities there may always be; but in no way do these deny the inherent equality of man, while artificial inequalities of wealth, birth, race, religion and opportunity do deny it.
Canadians ought to simplify the philosophy of life. We must convince ourselves and the world, too, that democracy works. Let us purify our system of glaring injustices which serve totalitarianism propaganda so well. Our thinking must rise above the level which looks down on the red, black or yellow man, the Jew or the new arrival from Europe. It must rise above the level that prefers lower taxes to good schools and adequate social legislation. It must rise above party politics or religious or racial feelings of superiority to accept the dictum that all men are equal, regardless of race, colour, creed or social status.
There is in the world today an angry surge of rebellion against exploitation, the misery of poverty and war. We can meet that protest by an understanding of the situation and by putting our own house in order. Corrupt privi-
Human Rights

lege at the expense of the people should not be the democratic way. Democracy has been an outstanding success for those who have enjoyed its privileges, but it must speak the language of the under-privileged if it is to win them as supporters. That is our job as legislators.
Recently, when discussing the work of the New York state fair employment commission in reducing discriminatory practices by employers, Mr. Charles Luckman of Lever Brothers stated:
Big business has a tremendous stake in securing civil liberties for every man, woman and child in the United States. It is my firm conviction that private enterprise is doomed in a country where civil liberties are ignored or forgotten or legislated against. In the process of investigating the abuses of civil liberties we found that whenever such abuses were rampant, standards of living were lowest, property yielded smaller returns in taxes and businessmen usually ended up in bankruptcy courts. Loss of civil liberties has invariably been followed by poverty, ignorance, and ill-health-three scourges which kept people from being good customers. Democracy is good for business.
Yes, business has a big stake in securing civil liberties for every man, woman and child. But every Canadian who enjoys our democratic way of life also has a big stake.
Our way of life today is being challenged, and we can meet that challenge if we but try. The pattern of our laws must follow the Christian concept. We have nothing to fear if we follow the teachings of Christianity, for they have stood the test of time.
In closing, I should like to direct the attention of the house to a short statement made by Edwin Markham which may serve as a guide in the committee's deliberations. He said:
We have committed the golden rule to memory; let us now commit it to life. We have preached brotherhood for centuries; we now need to find a material basis for brotherhood. Government must be made the organ of fraternity, a working form of comrade love.


Arthur Leroy Smith: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: They did not support me. Those were Social Credit members; they are all on the other side.


Mr. JAENICKE:: Those are your Alberta
friends.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am proud of them, but only in a comparative sense. They are so infinitely better than hon. members from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. All night we have been listening to great big words. We have been told1 that there are communists. I know that; I have heard it before. It is not new. Then we find there is an international ring. Then we have our hon. friends to my immediate left with their economic tyranny. I do not think I am misquoting them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right; we want
to end it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: All right; let us end it. Perhaps you will not be so anxious to end it when I have ended with you. Their whole political philosophy is based on a question of preaching envy and that envy will ultimately amount to hatred.
. At the end of the road they may form a government. I am not so old, but if I live twice as long as I have I am quite sure I shall never see it. If I should live to be 105 years of age, then I could spend that last year here and I know one of the things that would happen under the tyranny with which they would operate their system. In other words, it would be a police state.


Mr. WRIGHT:: That is what they said in England five years ago.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You are
getting closer to it every minute. You must know that in England right now they have a capital levy.


Percy Ellis Wright: They will survive all right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am quite sure that I could express the pious hope as my hon. friend has. I would not express it as a fact. I would continue to think it is a hope that they will survive. Of course they will survive, but under conditions more dreadful than anything they have ever known. But the courage is there and with that courage they will survive.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Things are not so tough as they would be if the Tories were in office.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let us assume that the hon. member is right and things would be tough in England if the Tories were in power, but the recent by-elections would seem to indicate that the people are inclined to think it would not be so bad. If my hon. friends were in power I know what my hon. friend's job would be. He would be the head of the gestapo in the government they would form after the rest of us had been thrown out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: More nonsense.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I usually hear my hon. friend. Stop talking into your whiskers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said, "more nonsense".


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Who is to head this gestapo?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I thought you would, but you have a better chap who is not here tonight. You can be assistant chief or something of that kind. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says "more nonsense." I am glad to see the hon. member for Lake Centre is here, because I intend to steal an expression from him and say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the greatest exponent of nonsense that I ever knew. He knows all about that sort of thing.


Eric Bowness McKay: Coming from the source it does, it is a compliment.


Arthur Leroy Smith: These little boys wTho play with firecrackers sometimes get their fingers burned.


Eric Bowness McKay: Where is the fire?


James Horace King: I would ask hon. members not to interrupt the hon. member who is speaking, without his permission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He likes it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am grateful to Your Honour for upholding the dignity and rules of the house, but I hope you are not suggesting that I need protection from these little boys over here.
What I am anxious to say is that it seems to me that we shall serve a great deal of time in this committee. We have been told that we are to leave here at the end of June. Between now and the end of June there are two or three by-elections coming up and I for one am going to be away from here for a short time. What I have in mind is this. If we are really serious about this thing-the hon.
Human Rights

member for Winnipeg North Centre will like this even though he made some nasty cracks before he finished-why do we not first settle the question of the authority which we or the committee may exercise, instead of spending over two or three months in the committee and probably ending in a blind alley. That seems to be simply common sense. I know that somebody will immediately rise and assert the dignity of the high court of parliament, but we all know that our legislation is always subject to review by the Supreme Court of Canada if a position is created where it may be taken there.
It is a well-known constitutional fact that an opinion may be sought from the supreme court by way of question. That would mean perhaps a delay until another session. I have no idea at the moment how busy that court may be, nor do I know how long it would take to prepare and properly present the argument. I have a suggestion to make. The greatest authority on rules that I know of is the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), and I think we might excuse him while he argued this case for parliament before the Supreme Court of Canada. Now that the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre has been ruled out of order on technical grounds, which I respect, sir, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has moved an amendment in language which may be more appropriate because he learns by the best of rules, that of trial and error- I do not want to credit him with being too great a genius, for I think he learned something from the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre-why can we not agree to find out if we are right or wrong?
We have had nothing written into our constitution since 1867 dealing with this question. We are now in 1948, and surely it can wait another year if it would take that long to decide it. I am quite sure that we could not get a finding from the supreme court by the end of June in time for us to do anything about it in this House of Commons this session. Why can we not all get together and adopt that simple suggestion? If the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not in proper form, let us put it in proper form and find out just what authority we have, instead of having a lot of us sitting around a table, making big speeches and talking all this idealistic business and some members not appearing in the committee at all because engaged perhaps on other duties, or something of that kind. Let us find out what our authority is, and then, when we know what it is, let us move within our authority just as far as we can. I submit to you, sir,

with great respect that that is the common-sense view to take of the whole position that we are in now. Then we may accomplish something, instead of delaying the situation for another year by forming the committee now.
I do not doubt that every member of the house is in favour of these freedoms and these liberties. The only difference I have heard in the house today was that raised by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), but he is an agreeable sort of gentleman and I think he might come along with us. He is the only person I have yet heard express a view against having something written into the constitution, but I do not think he would maintain that position long, because to write it in could not hurt the liberty situation; it could not hurt the basic freedom situation. The worst you could say about it would be that at the end it might be nugatory and accomplish nothing, but even at that we should have lost no ground.
So, with the greatest deference and respect I submit to the government and the minister in charge of this measure that they give it just a little more consideration. The supreme court are not so busy. We do not owe them anything. We vote their salaries in this House of Commons. They are fine men, able men, and I think they would be delighted to determine this jurisdictional question once and for all. Then we might have a committee of this house which would get some place. More than that, I suggest that the sensible thing is first to find out what we may do before we attempt to decide what we shall do, not knowing whether we have a right to do it or not.


Mrs. GLADYS STRUM (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read an essay; I hope I shall not have to indulge in a lot of dialogue, and I shall finish by eleven o'clock.
I wish to refer to the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and to the resolution to which it refers. The object of the resolution is to find out what is the legal and constitutional position in Canada with respect to human rights, and what steps, if any, it would be advisable to take or to recommend for the purpose of preserving in Canada respect for and the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I suggest to the government and to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) that it is not only his right but his duty to bring in a bill of rights. I think citizenship means very little if it can be qualified from province to province and subtracted from and denied on

Human Rights
certain grounds. Two years ago we had introduced to this house a Citizenship Act, of which we were all very proud, and we did not go to the provinces to ask them whether we had the right to pass such an act. We did not write to all the deans of law schools in Canada or to the attorneys general. We passed the Citizenship Act and it has never been challenged.
Last year when I was on the committee of human rights I thought it a strange procedure that we should search out all the objections to doing something if we really intended to fulfil our covenant with the united nations. In the summary which the minister gave the other day of the replies which he had received I found very little trace of objections. It was not a summing up of objections so much as a summing up of indifference, a summing up of ignoring. If this had been a burning question of vital importance to the provinces we would not have had the minister going over one reply after another and saying that such-and-such a one had expressed no opinion, and that another was simply an acknowledgment of his_ letter without stating any grounds. It was, as I say, a summing up of indifference to, rather than a summing up of objections to, a bill of rights. I think it was an irregular thing to do, because in this house if we think we are on solid ground we pass a bill and then wait for it to be challenged, instead of going out and asking for the challenge first. The customary thing is to pass an act, and then if it is declared ultra vires by the court we must abide by that decision. But in order, I think, to appease certain people we have reversed the procedure in this case.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that citizenship and the bill of rights are associated in law and in practice and in justice and that they must be considered jointly and on the same grounds. Since we passed the Citizenship Act, we have had some violations of our basic freedoms. The right of assembly has been violated, and I regret very much that the first violation of this right of assembly took place in the province from which I come. I regret very much that it took place in Regina where a group of citizens broke up a meeting that was called under the protection of the law. If the Labour Progressive party is an illegal organization we should say so. Until it has been declared illegal, we have no right to condone the breaking up of any meeting by force, because the right of assembly is just as basic as the right of religious freedom and the right of freedom of speech. The violation which occurred in Regina was repeated in the city of Windsor. I regret that, too. I am afraid 5849-184
these young people have heard their parents say at home what they think should be done with the communists. Very often older people are irresponsible and they make rash and extravagant statements, knowing that they will not act on them, but then their teen-age children go out and act on them. Maybe that is what happened in this case.
I hold no brief for the communist party, and the party with which I am associated is unalterably opposed to the methods and doctrines of the communist party. That is true of every party in this house. There is not a party in this house that would defend the communist doctrine or practices. What is it that we must oppose in this doctrine of communism? Is it not this denial of protection to the individual, this denial of human freedom and human dignity? When we condone lawless acts of violence, acts that violate the method of democracy, then we are condoning the very essence of communism. That is why I believe in Canada we must have a bill of rights. I believe that we must set out in statutory form the things which we wish to protect and the method by which we propose to do so.
There have been not only violations of freedom of assembly in Canada but other things as well. I wish that my hon. friend, the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and the other hon. members to my left had protested the action that took place in Alberta not so long ago where a woman in the middle of her washing, the president of the I.O.D.E, had her home invaded by the mounted police who searched for papers.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: How do you know that?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: It was in your province.


Charles Edward Johnston: Was it legal or otherwise?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I do not think there was any reason to search the premises of the president of the I.O.D.E. If the I.O.D.E. is an illegal society I have not heard of it. I object to these violations of the privacy of [DOT] the homes of individuals. I object to the violation of religious freedom; I object to the denial of the right of people to exercise ordinary human rights because they are coloured-because they are Chinese or because their ancestors were negroes-and yet these violations have taken place across Canada. It is time that we began to insist that this is a democratic country and that we intend to defend and enforce these human rights.
Recently in Europe we had an example of the observance of the rules of decency and law in the trials of war criminals whose acts provided an example of the most horrible and
Human Rights

degrading human bestiality yet on record. These people were tried and sentenced under a method that demonstrated, as nothing else could have done, the difference between the rule of law and the rule of brutality. Is that not the basic difference between the system which we defend and the system which we resist? Is not this building up of law as an entity, this building up of a method through which it might be practised, that demonstrates the value of democracy? It is time that we set up in a bill of rights a code and a method for the protection of the individual.
Referring again to our citizenship act, I have been pleased, since the passing of this act, to notice that the British government is studying it, that the government of Australia is studying it. Throughout the commonwealth it is held up as a model. That is something of which our country should be very proud. We should now pass a bill of rights which would compare with our Citizenship Act in defining the basic rights and freedoms which it would guarantee to the individual. It is time that we did this.
It is wrong to suggest that provinces may encroach upon the rights of the federal government in this respect. Recently I have had occasion to study in detail the history of the Canadian constitution. I was surprised to find that in the beginning, when the rights of the provinces were set out as opposed to the rights of the federal government, the federal rights defined by the British North America Act were used in the beginning only for illustrative purposes. They were used to illustrate the territory which should be exclusively under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. As time went on, through judicial decision, we find the provinces encroaching on the rights of the federal government. In that undefined
and unexplored legislative territory we find that the provinces made more gains than the federal government did, and gradually the only rights remaining to the federal government were those that had been originally set out for illustrative purposes only. I think it is a false conception of the federal system of government to assume that provinces can limit human freedom and human rights and can lessen the protection of the citizens of this country. Therefore I would suggest to the government that they waste no time in framing and introducing in this parliament a bill of rights. Canada is now not only a great, economic and military power but is a great moral force in the world today, and we wish to have this moral force unqualified by subtractions or limitations throughout the length and breadth of our land.
On motion of Mr. Church the1 debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The program for tomorrow will be the continuation of that of today, with the addition of the motion to go into supply and the adjourned debate on the amendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).
Stanley Howard Knowles: In what order?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not in a position to say in what order. I would hope that this debate on the motion to set up a committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms might be completed and disposed of in a short time before anything else was dealt with, but that has not yet been determined.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 13, 1948