Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

I wish to point out to the house the great importance of this motion in view of what happened in the second rape of Czechoslovakia last February and March. We have already lost the supremacy and the freedom of the seas, and do not know where it is going to land us. We do not know where it is going to land Canada. Because of that loss I wish to take part in this debate on human rights.

The events which have taken place in Europe in recent days have shocked the entire civilized world into recognition of the grave danger that faces not only the people of Canada and of the United States but the British empire as a whole, because of the irreconcilable difference between western ideas of democracy and the ideas of the east. For that reason I wish to say something this afternoon on the motion that is before the house.

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on his persistence in bringing this whole human rights matter to the attention of the house. I referred to it myself when parliament met in September, 1945. On that occasion I discussed this whole subject. The hon. member deserves a great deal of credit for pointing out to the house the grave danger in which our country finds itself at the present time.

For four centuries we have depended for our freedom on Britain's supremacy on the seas.

Human Rights ___________________

British naval might saved us, or rather our forefathers, in the days of Philip of Spain and the Spanish Armada, as it has done on other memorable occasions, in the days of Louis XIV, Napoleon, and twice in our own generation against Germany. British naval power and command of the seas saved the whole civilized world. From the peace that followed Waterloo in 1815 the world had a hundred' years of peace, until the outbreak of the first world war in 1914, because Britain was supreme upon the seas.

The motion which the Prime Minister has introduced for a committee of both houses on human rights is concerned with the fundamental freedoms of speech and of assembly, and freedom from want and fear, as set out in the Atlantic charter. I should like, Mr. Speaker, to get the attention of hon. members opposite. If they are not interested in what I have to say, at least they should be interested in the subject I am discussing. Does freedom, and particularly the freedom that I have been referring to for the last few minutes, the freedom of the seas, mean nothing to hon. members in this house? We can find time to discuss the price of sugar, the price of wheat and other material things, but apparently hon. members are not interested in their own security. It is about time we all woke up to the danger that faces us.

I was referring a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, to the Atlantic charter. The word charter has undergone some change. It is defined in the Pocket Oxford Dictionary in these terms:

Charter-Written grant of rights by sovereign or legislature, privilege or admitted right.

That is one of the meanings, but in our day it has come to mean a good deal more. I say this because under our system we have a complicated constitution. I agree with what the Minister of Justice has said, that there are certain provisions in our constitution that leave a wide field to the provinces. We are part and parcel of the empire, and I suggest that we should never overlook that fact in considering our relations with other parts of the commonwealth with respect to a motion of this kind. I contend that the principles which the fathers of confederation had in mind did not contemplate the duplicate provincial system we have today. Property and civil rights fall within the provinces and it is difficult to secure uniform law. When the Supreme Court of Canada was created the purpose was to hold an even balance between the municipalities and the provinces

on the one hand and the dominion on the other, under the charter which we call the British North America Act.

In my opinion we should have the right, as a parliament, under the Supreme Court Act, to refer to that tribunal any doubtful matter, and in this connection I suggest that we should have a legal committee functioning in Canada. We should have had one years ago. I have frequently urged something of the sort. Certainly there should be some body to which we could refer matters such as that which we have been discussing in the last few days.

Since confederation the enforcement of federal law has been delegated to the attorneys general of the provinces. The federal government does not enforce its own enactments. I contend that there should be federal enforcement of federal law, but because we have not the proper machinery for the enforcement of these laws, their enforcement is turned over to the provinces, who in turn further delegate it to municipalities and local police forces.

In considering the motion before us we have to take into account the constitutional act of 1791. Much of the common law of England has been copied into our constitution, since 1791, as adapted to our circumstances, including the right of habeas corpus and the principles embodied in the Bill of Rights, the Petition of Rights, and Magna Carta. It must not be forgotten that the principles of Christianity have also formed a part of the common law of England, and since 1791 that has been copied into our laws. Unless we do everything in our power to preserve the freedoms that we enjoy today, and above all to do our part in maintaining the freedom of the seas, through the naval supremacy of Britain, we may find ourselves in very grave danger, with one-half the rest of the world armed to the teeth.

The main questions before the country today are parliamentary reform, constitutional reform, cabinet reform and law reform. We have had no law reform in this country, as far as I can see. The jails have been filled with people who should not be there. We talk about human rights and all that sort of thing, but many of our young people have been suffering as a result of our system of controls. Fundamentally, the motion is sound in principle, but whether it can be enforced is another matter. In the olden days might was right. Today, might plus right is right, especially in the world as it is at the present time. Under the British constitution the courts are subservient to the legislature. That is one of the cardinal principles of the English constitution and has been from time immemorial.

Human Rights

We have seen the effect of this in many ways in our own country, observing what goes on both within and outside Canada. I have always insisted in this house that, ever since the year 1770, parliament has been recognized as the body charged with the determination of national expenditures. It was on the principle that there should be no taxation without representation that the United States of America, or as it was at the time of the secession, the colonies, broke with Britain, when the people of Boston threw the tea into the harbour. The British people from that time to this day have demanded parliamentary control.

Since the lights went out in Europe in 1914 we have had pretty nearly thirty-five years of war and fear. The people have been haunted by fear, restraint and discipline. Fear is filling the cemetery. We have a tendency to over-organize. We are living in an age in which labour is taught to fear capital and capital is taught to fear labour. The United States fears invasion and boom and bust. The world fears the atomic bomb. Everyone fears someone or something, and liberty is nowhere. What we want in Canada today is more freedom and less legislation which interferes with the liberty of the subject.

The world outlook today is exitremely dark. As was stated by William Pitt in the House of Commons in England, "necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." If you look at the world today, you will find its condition set out in the second verse of the first chapter of Genesis:

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

That is exactly what you have today. Where is freedom of the seas? Let me tell you that questions have not been and will not be answered in the British House of Commons. Where will you be without freedom of the seas? That was the real Monroe doctrine for nearly two hundred years, the supremacy of Britain on the seas, and freedom of the seven seas. Where are you going to be without it? I can tell you, and I cannot be successfully contradicted. In the old country there is the navy league. They are up and doing and they know where every ship is. But what have we here? We have not a battleship on the seven seas. We have not a carrier or a destroyer on the seven seas today. The navy has simply been wiped out. Where are we going to be in this country? Yet there is talk about the 5849-193

price of food and all that kind of thing. I may say that the country does not belong to those who sit here in this house representing their constituents. It is an inheritance from the past, a possession for the present, and a trust for the future. Where are you going to be while all this is going on?

I am a great admirer of the people of the United States. I wish to refer to them now for a few moments. The people of the United States, now that they are running the united nations, and the organization is located in their midst, need not think that the second league which they created at Lake Success will be any better than the other one. These leagues have been in existence for over a hundred years. Hon. members will recall the Holy Alliance which led a great prime minister of Great Britain, George Canning, to urge Britain to get out of Europe and unite, and led to the Monroe doctrine in 1823. From that date forward the Monroe doctrine was the supremacy of Britain on the seas, which gave them the freedom they have. _

I marvel at what the people of the United States have done in two wars. I think it would be better, though, if we were to tell them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about our side of the world's story. Look at the way these things have been handled at Lake Success. Wait until the historians write up these events. Look at what has beeni done with regard to Palestine, India, the Suez and Greece. Look at what happened in Geneva; millions in buildings erected there. All the newspapers commented -and not in one or two or three lines-on the collapse of that league over in Geneva. Look at the way they have bandied Palestine, the Indialn situation, the Balkan states, and the Baltic states. All these matters have been before this united nations organization, and everybody has wanted to go down there 'in such a great rush and stop at the fine hotels. I venture to say that when we get the bill for a floor of a Biltmore hotel or two $100,000 will be a small amount compared with what has been expended at the great feast that has been going on down there. Wait until the people find out what has been going on.

Has Lake Success made it any easier for the United States to get on with Russia? I should say no. The U.N.O. at Lake Success has been one of the most mischievous institutions we have ever had in the past or will have in the future. Today I think that western civilization is farther apart from eastern civilization than it has ever been in the past. There is no use in our supporting these leagues any longer; they have been a flat failure in the past. There is no use in

Human Rights

Poland and all the others. I have always contended that we should see to it that our method of representation creates no injustice and does not infringe on the liberty of the subject. There should be freedom of thought and freedom to seek a living voluntarily, without being coerced as they were under the statutes of labour in England in the thirteenth century.

We should support private enterprise without interference politically or otherwise. I am opposed to government by the delegation of controls and moving the control of parliament to the law courts, whereby personally controlled judicial boards grant individual freedom. That cannot be in a democracy; there is no real democracy in a condition of that kind.

Tradition is part of the policy of the party on this side of the house. We have respect for the ancient customs of ordered life and living, for privileges of parliament and freedom of speech, for legal respect, for the independence of judges and the judicial system. This party has respect for all that kind of thing.

Also as Progressive Conservatives we believe in bridging the gap between owner and workman, landlord and tenant, ruler and ruled. There is a unity of purpose, and all classes are bound, because our future happiness depends upon mutual sympathy and understanding in a Christian way. When Disraeli saw two nations, the rich and the poor, living within one country, he provided aid and succour to the weak by introducing social legislation. In my opinion the past cannot be separated from the present or the present from the future. We cannot escape from the responsibilities of the present, or shrink from our duty toward the future. We have accepted the doctrine of trusteeship.

It is for these reasons I shall support the motion. We need no longer think that we can Jhave any of our freedoms under organizations *such as that at Lake Success, which is nothing !but a tower of Babel. We must not allow our interests to be thwarted. Does any hon. member know any nation which will permit its own interests to be handed over to another country? Certainly no nation will do that, unless she is so small that she cannot protect herself. Because after all is said and done patriotism is the cement that binds nations together. Those nations in Europe which have been overrun by the Soviet union want their freedom back. Let us look at Czechoslovakia, formerly one of the freest peoples in the world. Look at the way they were raped for the second time in the month of February last.

One of my reasons for supporting this motion is that I believe we shall always have patriotism, because people love their country. Love

of country is something that cannot be taken from one. After all, it was Sir Walter Scott in the Lay of the Last Minstrel who said:

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said,

This is my own, my native land!

Whose heart hath ne'er within his burn'd As home his footsteps he hath turn'd.

From wandering on a foreign strand?

If suc-h there breathe, go, mark him well;

For him no minstrel raptures swell;

High though his titles, proud his name, Boundless his wealth as wish can claim,

Despite those titles, power, and pelf,

The wretch, concentrated all in self,

Living, shall forfeit fair renown,

And, doubly dying, shall go down To the vile dust, from whence he sprung, Unwept, unhonour'd, and unsung.

No country, not even Canada, should leave its own affairs to other nations or to Lake Success; you cannot have peace or security by any such procedure or farce as that.

They tried it before. It was tried in the Holy Alliance, 1815 to 1823, and that was a failure. No country will allow other countries to run its affairs, unless that country is too weak to fight in its own defence. In Canada at the present time we have no defence. The future of both Canada and the United States depends upon the peoples of those countries. Today at least they are wide awake, after what happened in Czechoslovakia. But the leagues, or the united nations organizations, or towers of Babel, or Lake Success, or the Marshall plan, can do nothing better than Great Britain and her dominions can do when they are working together and hanging together and united together. I say that because Great Britain and her dominions are vastly superior in resources than either Russia or the United States. The minute we depart from the empire, Great Britain will become a second-class power and neither Britain nor her dominions will have anything at all to say in the peace terms.

Our position in the future is of great importance. We should re-establish our air policy; the empire air training plan should be set up again at once. Our position at the present time is an important one, and it is because of that that I say our air policy should be planned, in consultation with Great Britain. We should have an empire security council, and all that kind of thing.

I had not intended taking part in the debate, but I felt I should make these few observations. What would become of the people of this country in another war? In the last one we had submarines right in the St. Lawrence river. At Riviere du Loup, where the submarines are said to have been, the river is as

Human Rights

wide as is lake Ontario from Niagara-on-the-Lake to the eastern gap. But the newspapers then did not say a word of it; the people were not entitled to know. Are we going to have the same situation as we had here in 1938, when we were entirely unprepared? Are we going to wait until the enemy comes?

The trouble with Russia all started down at Lake Success, because we will remember that during the war Russia was an ally. After the first great war we lost two of our allies, Italy and Japan, and we never should have lost them. We have lost one of our allies from the last war, and will lose some others, because those others have no security. Are we going to wait until our enemy comes here and sails up the St. Lawrence river?

We have a long and unprotected coast on the Pacific, stretching from Puget sound. What are we going to do about it? Britain has no battleships, destroyers or fleet carriers out there.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order. The hon. member's time has expired.

Mr. CHURCH:

We have none on the Atlantic, the Pacific or the Mediterranean, and it is time we had some.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order.

Mr. CHURCH:

I thank hon. members, through you, sir, for your courtesy in listening.

Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):

Mr. Speaker, what I have to say in this debate will not take more than two minutes. However I believe mine will be a contribution of a practical kind, one which will be worthwhile, because it relates to those who are reaching our shores now from Europe, from the displaced persons camps, as workers, farmers and relatives of Canadian citizens.

The people who are coming here have suffered much; they have lost much, and they have feared much. Almost invariably they are confused as to their rights of freedom in this new land to which they come for the first time. Therefore I suggest that the government should form orientation centres at our ports to which the ships are bringing these people. There the workers, farmers and relatives should be held for a few days only, so that they may be told about their rights, privileges and freedoms in the country they are entering. At the same time they could be shown some films and given information about the climate of our country. They could begin their cultural orientation to our Canadian way of life. They could be told how the machinery of our electoral system works, and, most important of

all, they could be told what to do when the agent of a foreign power threatens them when they reach Canadian soil.

This last mentioned is the most important suggestion I have to offer. I believe they should be told even before they reach our shores what they can do with respect to those who would continue to threaten them in Canada. They should be told how to approach our police, how to advise Canadian authorities respecting approaches made to them. I make these suggestions because I know the newspaper articles are quite true in their reports as to incidents which have taken place on trains and in homes in Canada.

I hope that the government will take note of this suggestion in order that our hopes for the future and the rights and privileges enjoyed in this free country may be brought to the attention of our new citizens immediately upon their arrival.

Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf):

Mr. Speaker, I usually speak French in the house and English in the committees. This afternoon I shall try to express in English what I have to say, and I hope that I shall not be too long, in order that I may please as much as I can those whom I am going to criticize.

In this country, and especially, may I add, in my province of Quebec, we are all for civil rights and freedom, and this question has been widely discussed on many occasions. But the difficulty lies in the fact that it is hard to establish a sound basis from which to start. To hear some hon. members in this debate one might think that a few of them-fortunately only a few-were ready to give equal freedom to evil and good. In my province we are not ready to give equal freedom to evil and good. It is all right to talk about civil rights and freedom,, even for those who are organizing from central Europe in order that they may be ready to break our back when they judge the proper time has come. In this country it is useless to name those who are getting ready to break our back and to do it more rapidly than this house seems to think.

I should like to refer to the question put by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), speaking in this debate the other day, as reported at page 2871 of Hansard of April 12, where he said:

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.

In answer to his first question I would say that no one can reasonably maintain that we have lost any freedoms in this country. To the second question I answer that in reality we are in danger of losing many freedoms.

Human Rights

Some members, I say, give me the impression that they are ready to give equal freedom to evil and good, even to those very same people who are ready to break our back. What would those people do if they were in our place in this free House of Commons? They would ask for freedom and civil rights in this house, but outside the house they would organize and tell their friends to get ready for the day of revolution when they will overthrow by force and violence this very government of Canada. What we are being asked to do is to give more freedom and civil rights to these people.

I am a Catholic, and I am absolutely opposed to materialism and atheism. To every Christian I have no hesitation in saying that we must not be ready to give equal freedoms to those who are daily fed with materialism and atheism, because not only would they destroy our democratic form of government; at the same time they would destroy the creed in the minds of our people who believe in the existence of God. We cannot allow them to do that. That is my stand on this resolution.

I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He made a wonderful speech. It took a very able lawyer to make such a speech in favour of human and civil rights when in this free country the civil rights and freedoms, especially of the Frenchspeaking people, have often been denied in some quarters, and we were told to keep quiet. We did not bring forward any resolution or make long speeches saying that we were persecuted. No, we continued our march towards national unity, assured that some day that national unity would be attained by the good will and consideration of everyone in this country. We did not leave the country. Sometimes we may have appeared to some to be taking the wrong way in refusing help to those who were asking us to go and fight nazism and fascism. But it was agreed, if I may say so, that we were not obliged to take part in any external war. That time however has gone, and now we have come back together to make this country the best in the world. In doing that we should not be ready to give sufficient freedom to our enemies within to help to secure the proper weapons to destroy this very country of ours. To do so would be absolutely illogical, and that is why I am trying to give my thoughts to the house this afternoon.

Someone said the other day that in trying to pass a law to ban communism we were using the same weapons as the communists, doing the same things that the communists are doing. That may be so, but when it is a question of life or death I say let us strike

first in order not to be killed afterwards. That is why I would favour the passing of such a law-not because I believe that that is the only way to stop the spread of communism, Mr. Speaker; far from it. But if that is one of the weapons we need to stop the march of that evil theory to which some of us are ready to give freedom equal to what they give to the real democrats in this country, then we should use it.

On the national ground, Mr. Speaker, I could give example after example of the truth of my words this afternoon. The people of this country, yea, the people of all the countries of the world, were not aware of the danger ahead. Now they are afraid of the danger within and the present danger. Some of the nations of the world have banned communism. Is communism spreading more rapidly in those countries? Take Brazil, for instance. They imprisoned Julio Prestes. Brazil is victoriously overcoming communism. They have banned communism. Turkey has banned communism, and they are fighting communism equally victoriously, and Soviet Russia.

Chile has done the same. Let us hope that more countries of the world will do the same. Very often some people will say: Would you like fascism better? No; I am a real democrat. But sometimes some nation, especially the united nations, would be glad to have a Spain, a fascist-ruled nation, at the present time, to stop communism from spreading in Europe in order to take away from England the strait of Gibraltar. I was reading the other day a book entitled "Forging of a Rebel", and I discovered in that book- I saw the information was accurate because I checked it in other books, and one of them was that book on Stalin by Trotsky-that communism has been working since 1915 in Morocco across the strait of Gibraltar, and that Doctor Juan Negrin had developed a war in Spain. In saying that they had developed a war in Spain I am not trying to excuse Franco, but I am stating the real facts about Spain.

Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that communism will not spread wider in Europe; let us hope that it will not go farther than it has gone, but if it should go farther we would be glad to have fascist Spain to help us to defend what is left of democracy in Europe. I should be glad if our representative in the united nations would whisper in the ears of England and the United States not to try to take Spain away from the European recovery program, because they are in a position to help democracy. This is the time to assist freedom and civil rights, because the Spaniards

Human Rights

are enjoying that regime at the present time, and it would be right to ask the other nations to try to help England. If England, with her socialist government, does not understand yet, let us hope that the people will continue their victorious march, started in the municipal elections, and that they will do away with a government that has no understanding of the real advantage to England of having the assistance of Spain.

With regard to the united nations organization, I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I shall say things that may not be approved by everyone in this house or outside of the house, but I am speaking my mind. I think that the shadow of communistic Russia has been falling on the united nations organization for too long a time. Notwithstanding their numerous vetoes, very often we can see from the speeches delivered by Gromyko and Vishinsky that they have a deliberate goal to attain. It is to try to impress on the nations of the world the necessity of giving more freedom outside Russia, and outside the iron curtain, in order that their organization may go farther in these very countries. We have been warned before. For instance, we were warned in 1932. I hold in my hand a copy of the judgment in the King vs. Buck and others, delivered by the court of appeal of Ontario, concerning the communist party in Canada. In a preface to the judgment Mr. William H. Price, the then attorney general for Ontario said:

The chief justice has outlined in the judgment the origin of the communist party of Canada, has referred to the evidence showing it to be an integral part of the world-wide communist international.

There is no question that the communist party of Canada is just a part of the communist international. We cannot discuss it without wasting our time. In the judgment we find the following:

According to the evidence of the accused Timothy Buck, large numbers of communists in Canada, in the fall of 1920, secured copies of those theses and statutes and in 1921 several groups of communists held a conference in Canada and formed an association called the communist party of Canada. Buck testified that the communist party of Canada was a section of the communist international and that from the year 1924 onward the above-mentioned theses and statutes became binding upon the communist party of Canada.

The communist international at the meeting of its second world congress (its supreme governing body) held in Moscow in July, 1920, passed certain theses and statutes. Two editions of them were published, being exhibits 27 and 103 at the trial.

"The communist international makes it its duty to support with all the power at its disposal every soviet republic wherever it may be found. . .

Russia is asking for the same civil rights and freedom for all citizens of the world, because she is ready to support every republic wherever it may be found under the role of the communist workers.

Only a violent defeat of the bourgeoisie, the confiscation of its property, the annihilation of the entire bourgeois governmental apparatus, parliamentary, judicial, military, bureaucratic, administrative, municipal, etc. . . .

You are ready to give more civil rights and more freedom to those who want to do all this to your free institutions? You are asking that they be given more freedom? I do not understand how anyone can ask that such people be given more freedom.

It was in the name of civil rights and freedom that the French people had La Declaration des Droits de l'Homme in 1789. What happened in France after that? There were a few revolutions. There was one in 1848 and another in 1871. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that the chiefs of government in France, who were radical socialists with a tinge of communism, though they did not confess it frankly, who passed laws to deprive a few million Frenchmen of their religious teachers, were not in favour of greater freedom and civil rights for themselves? They were in favour of .more human rights and more freedom.

In 1901 they re-enacted another law which had been repealed before the fall of Napoleon III. In 1901, under the socialist premier Waldeck-Rousseau, after that law had been re-enacted by the French parliament, the religious teachers and institutions of France were penalized. Do you want to give people of that kind, the people who were ready to do that sort of thing, greater freedom in this country ? In the name of civil rights and freedom, do you want to give them the power which they will inevitably obtain if we continue extending more and more freedom to them in their evil-doing? Do you want to give such people freedom to do in this country, if possible, more than they did in France?

We cannot do that. We must keep wide awake. My hon. friends have read "Speaking Frankly", by Byrnes, on the international situation, and those who have read it know what is going on. To those who will take the trouble to read serious writers or, I would say, even to read communist writers, I commend a book prefaced by Senator Pepper, entitled' "Great Conspiracy against Russia", a copy of which was sent to me by a communist of Montreal. They will read in that book what organizations like the NKVD would do in this country.

Human Rights

What, happened in that organization? They killed each other simply to retain power. They are doing precisely what Stalin did in the name of civil rights and greater freedom, when he had three trials against Zinoviev and Kamenev, with Yishinsky acting as attorney general. As a result of those trials where were the victims sent? Everyone here can give the answer to that question. Is that the situation we wish to develop in this country by giving greater freedom and more civil rights to people who are coming here, presumably to become good Canadians, but who are really waiting for an opportunity to break our back, if war should break out with Russia? That is the real situation.

I do not mind if there is laughter at this. I know I am right. I know that we have not been sufficiently afraid of the danger that lies right ahead of us, and it is about time we stopped these people. It is about time we stopped asking parliament to give them greater freedom to kill us.

When I was a student in the Catholic seminary of Quebec I read the speeches delivered in, the Senate of Rome by the great Cicero to Catiline, public enemy No. 1. He must have been the Tim Buck of that time. Cicero said to him: "When, 0 Catiline, do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us?" I am asking that very question of every man in this country, whether he is Canadian born or foreign born, or whether he is a communist. How long? I know it will be for a long time, because this institution of communism is more than a political party. They make a wrong use of the freedom they have been given, and which they gladly received when they came to Canada. If they do not understand the kind of freedom we have, which is real; if they do not understand and cannot appreciate the real freedom they are enjoying here, then I say, let them go back home and leave us to make this Canada of ours a great country. It is already a great country, but what we wish above all else is national unity. We want the freedom that we have been enjoying, even if sometimes there is what we call in French un petit accroc.

We have attained this freedom for ourselves and we do not want to have these people destroy it just to obtain a greater advantage for themselves in organizing their evil workers. And when I say workers I mean communist workers on every step of the social ladder.

I ask these people to think as Canadians. If they cannot, it is most unfortunate, because we are Canadians. And to those who, I repeat, are sincerely asking for more civil rights and freedom for these people, both on

international and on national grounds, I say, be careful not to give equal freedom to evil theories and to good theories. They have no right to act so that their acts will destroy this democracy of ours, because I believe in democracy.

I want to finish my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by these words that you must have heard when Frenchmen sing their national anthem, La Marseillaise: "Liberte, Liberte cherie". We enjoy it here and, however, important he may be, we do not want anyone to destroy it. We are going to fight it out to the end and we are going to keep it in spite of everything.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Shall the motion as amended carry?

Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):

Perhaps I should say a few words, Mr. Speaker-

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

If the hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate..

Go ahead.

Mr. ILSLEY:

Perhaps I should say a few words before the motion passes. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdon-niell) asked me to express my opinion as to-whether this thing is any good at all. He said, as reported at page 2881 of Hansard:

... I think we are at least entitled to hear from the Minister of Justice whether he thinks, it is a good thing.

Earlier he said:

I think we are entitled to know from the-Minister of Justice, who is a serious man, whether this thing means anything.

He was talking about the international bill' of rights, not the proposal for a national bill of rights, so-called, about which I shall have-something to say before I finish. I thank the-hon. gentleman for the confidence he reposes in my judgment but I myself feel that my-judgment is not particularly good on this matter. As he asked a serious question, however, I think perhaps I should undertake a serious reply.

I am of the opinion that the insertion in the-charter of the united nations of the articles referring to human rights and fundamental freedoms served a useful purpose. Article 13' of the charter provides:

1. The general assembly shall initiate studies, and make recommendations for the purpose of:

b. promoting international co-operation in the-economic, social, cultural, educational and health, fields, and assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

Before the war and during the war, peoples-in many parts of the world had terrible experiences as the result of the violation of human

Human Rights

rights and fundamental freedoms. One now needs only to think of what went on in nazi Germany and in other countries to realize the force of what I am saying. Certainly this objective-the promotion of international cooperation for the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms-is a high, noble and worthwhile one. The very insertion of these articles in the charter of the united nations I think has caused the governments and the peoples of the world to look critically at themselves with a view to seeing whether their own laws, the administration of their own laws, their own customs, their own practices, violate, in any substantial way at least, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Pursuant to that article it was deemed necessary to set up a commission on human rights and to undertake this measure, the drafting of what has been called an international bill of rights. As the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said, this is a task of enormous difficulty. It is a task that will not soon be completed. A draft bill of rights has been submitted to the countries of the world for their comments. This draft bill of rights, as I said in moving this resolution, consists of three parts: a draft declaration of human rights, a draft covenant of human rights and measures of implementation. I have no doubt that, before any agreement is arrived at, many changes will be made in this international bill of rights. There will be many exceptions, many qualifications, many provisos and many escape clauses. The prospect is a somewhat formidable one, but I believe that not only are we committed by our signature to the charter of the united nations but that the task itself will be a worthwhile one which I hope-and I cannot do any more than hope -will come to something after a very considerable length of time.

We were criticized by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario for not moving more rapidly since January. We were criticized, I think, by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) for not assuming responsibility as a government for making comments and suggestions to the united nations on the draft bill of rights. In the British House of Commons the speakers who dealt with this urged not haste but deliberation. I do not think that there was so much hurry about this matter that leaving it until it could be placed before a committee of parliament, and before parliament, before the government made their comments and observations, in any real sense prejudiced the objective which we hope will eventually be attained.

I have been speaking about the international bill of rights. I have not been talking in a tone of undue optimism or enthusiasm, as hon. gentlemen will know. But I am responding sincerely to the invitation given by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario to express my opinion as to whether it is a good thing or whether we are justified in spending our time thinking about it. I think we are. I think we are justified in doing so.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Will the minister speak a little more loudly?

Mr. ILSLEY:

All right. With regard to the proposal which interests a few members of the house more than the international bill of rights-that is, the national bill of rights that has been suggested-I should like to say just a few words. The proposals in this debate have been not that our constitution be amended so that the provinces and the dominion would both have the field of their activities in the realm of civil rights curtailed; the proposal has been that we enact a dominion statute.

I should like to follow the implications of that. That statute, of course, would not impose any restraint, except moral, upon future parliaments or future sessions of the same parliament. That is, this parliament could pass a statute the following year or any year thereafter which did not comply with the statute defining the human rights and fundamental freedoms which must not be infringed. On the other hand, to the extent that statute might be valid, to the extent that statute would be within the limit of our constitutional authority, it would impose restraint upon the provinces; and the point I was trying to make clear in my opening remarks was that we should be very careful not to stir up a provincial rights controversy over this matter unless we are very sure of our ground.

It seemed to be assumed by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that we should find out by a reference to the court how far we could go, and go that far. I do not think that is obvious by any means. I think when a curtailment of rights heretofore exercised by provinces in certain fields is attempted there is a little higher duty imposed upon the dominion parliament than to find out just how far it can go and go that far. I think they must have some regard to the traditions, the history, the feelings and the beliefs of the provinces as to what their powers are. The hon. member for Lake Centre says he does not want to invade any provincial fields; yet later in his remarks he accused the government of trying to centralize authority here. Well, no one wants to invade any provincial fields, and as far as we know we have never done so.

Human Rights

What are we being accused of? Not that we have invaded provincial fields or done anything illegally. We have been accused by the hon. member for Lake Centre consistently and persistently of having acted not illegally but improperly, in trying to centralize authority in this parliament and in this government. That is what we have been accused of. We do not want to act improperly.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

If you have learned that lesson we have gone a long way.

Mr. ILSLEY:

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into too much of a controversy here, but you know it is a little hard to listen to my hon. friend protest his desire to be non-political and non-partisan, while at the same time, in a non-political and non-partisan speech, he makes a remark like this, which is found at page 2860 of Hansard for April 12:

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.

Parliamentary rules do not permit me to characterize that statement as I should like to do. I have sat in this government since 1935, and I have never sat with a colleague who had a greed for power, or who was afflicted with the violence of unrestrained authority outside the law, or who was in competition with another minister for power. What we did during the war and what we are doing now was and is done out of a sense of duty to the Canadian people. We are bringing everything before parliament in so far as it is possible to bring things before parliament, having in mind the emergent situations that arise. We have laughed off this idea that we are a group of little tyrants trying to monopolize power, trying to centre power in ourselves, greedy for power, and so on. We have laughed it off year after year, and perhaps we should laugh it off still. I do not think very many people believe it; but this is the kind of accusation the hon. member for Lake Centre has, I think, talked himself into believing. I want to say to my hon. friend, do not become inebriated with the exuberance of your own verbosity. Get away from this sophomoric invective. Get away from this adolescent abuse. Be mature in your criticism of the government. I am saying that to my hon. friend through you, Mr. Speaker. The government certainly is not perfect; the government makes mistakes, but do not get down to this ad hominem abuse and accuse us of being greedy for power, of competing with one another for power or of trying to centre power in ourselves for the sake of power, because there is nothing in it

and members of this house, outside the hon. member for Lake Centre, do not believe it in their hearts, nor do the people of the country.

Mr. KNOWLES:

There is no abuse as between the Liberals and Tories out in Saskatchewan. They are working together very well out there.

Mr. ILSLEY:

Never mind. Then in his speech my hon. friend had some new suggestions to make, all of which will be given consideration. I remember that last year two of the prominent features of his speech were, first, that the War Measures Act should be repealed, and, second, a scathing criticism of the spy probe. He has not repeated those this year. Why? Would it be that the political atmosphere, the atmosphere of public opinion in the country, is not too favourable to a repetition of those points this year? Instead the hon. member offers new suggestions, such as the setting up of a civil rights division in the Department of Justice. I do not want to condemn that out of hand. They have a civil rights division in the department of justice in the United States, and of course that is what the hon. member had in mind. He suggested that it would be a reservoir, a place to which Canadians could go with their complaints; whereupon, naturally, those in charge of the civil rights division or the Minister of Justice would immediately intervene; would write to the provinces, I suppose, and say, "What are you trying to do with this kind of legislation?" I can see all sorts of friction and controversy arising from that suggestion;

I can see many objections to it; but, like the other suggestions, it can be given consideration.

When we set up this committee we shall consider what we ought to do and how far we ought to go with regard to this national bill of rights, so-called; and by the amendment which has just been adopted the committee is empowered to recommend that the government can have the assistance of the court if they wish. In this debate we seem to have thought that it is a simple thing to draft abstract general questions as to how far we can go, and put them to the Supreme Court of Canada. The supreme court will refuse to write essays in answer to abstract questions. Moreover those answers will have no binding force of law; they will not be final or conclusive. And it is going to take a considerable degree of skill, I may say, on the part of the members of the committee to frame any questions which will be appropriate to put to the court. I hope eloquence in debate in this house will be converted into diligent action in the committee, because I can see

Export and Import Permits Act

that the committee will have before it a task which it will be hard to discharge.

Mr. KNOWLES:

The power given to the committee is also to draft the bill.