May 19, 1947

SC

Norman Jaques

Social Credit

Mr. JAQUES:

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

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
IND

Jean-François Pouliot

Independent Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

The old tomorrow.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
SC

Norman Jaques

Social Credit

Mr. JAQUES:

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

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Maurice Hartt

Liberal

Mr. HARTT:

Well put; I agree with that.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

It must be wrong.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
SC

Norman Jaques

Social Credit

Mr. JAQUES:

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

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

James Horace King (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

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

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
SC

Norman Jaques

Social Credit

Mr. JAQUES:

With all due deference, I

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

Human Rights

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

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
SC

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit

Mr. HANSELL:

Quite a picture!

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
SC

Norman Jaques

Social Credit

Mr. JAQUES:

The reason I quote that is to point it out to those who apparently are unaware of just what is going on. There you have a magazine which has gone out of its way to attack the social credit movement in general and me in particular, and I might add to attack the leader of this party and the social credit movement in Quebec. It attacks us on the ground of fascism and anti-semitism, but when we come to look into the thing we find that it is purely a communist paper and nothing else.

Just to give one illustration of the policies of this paper, here it attacks the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), for whom I have the greatest respect. It is speaking about the Polish soldiers who were brought to this country and says:

These Polish fascists must be farmers, according to the statement of Mr. St. Laurent-

It includes the former minister of justice. -and will presumably be settled in the province of Alberta, where there are a considerable number of veterans who have not got jobs. Why does Jaques go out of his way to praise Watson Ivirkconnell for espousing the cause of these anti-Semitic thugs-

Referring to the Polish soldiers, of course. -selected for the pogrom spirit? Mustn't sneeze at 4,000 well-trained allies who can be relied upon to teach the people of Alberta and Canada some of the elementary principles of pogrom-making.

That should give the members of the house and the public some idea of the sort of propaganda that is being used against the social credit movement in general and against me in particular, and of course that sort of thing is not confined to this magazine. I quote it only because I happen to have a copy here. If one listens to the radio or reads the columnists in various papers one cannot fail

to be impressed by the immense amount of communist propaganda that is being put out by men like Elmore Philpott, for instance, who for years has been steadily trying to undermine the loyalty of the people of this country, continually criticizing the conditions of this country in comparison with that of Russia, but he takes mighty good care to stay in Canada and not go to Russia.

That brings me to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the film board. Why should men like Philpott be given all the time apparently they want, and they have been given it for years on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? They have no responsibility to anybody. But those who stand up for this country and for its institutions and are loya.. to this country and denounce those who are not loyal, what do we get? Nothing but smears and criticism from the press and the radio.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
IND

Jean-François Pouliot

Independent Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

Bill of rights! Bill of rights!

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
SC

Norman Jaques

Social Credit

Mr. JAQUES:

Let me quote the second part of Mr. Churchill's statement about communist methods:

The creation of a mild Liberal or socialist regime in some period of convulsion is the first milestone. But no sooner has this been created than it is to be overthrown. Woes and scarcity resulting in bloodshed are to be arranged between the agents of the new government and the working people. An apologetic attitude in the rulers should be turned to profit. Martyrs are to be manufactured. No faith need be, indeed may be kept with non-communists. Every act of good will, of tolerance, of conciliation, of mercy, of magnanimity_ on the part of governments, or statesmen is to be utilized for their ruin. Then when the time is ripe and the moment opportune, every form of lethal violence, from mob revolt to private assassination, must be used without stint or compunction. The citadel will be stormed under the banners of liberty and democracy; and once the apparatus of power is in the hands of the brotherhood, all opposition, all contrary opinion must be extinguished by death. Democracy is but a tool to be used and afterwards broken. The absolute rule of a self-chosen priesthood is to be imposed upon mankind without mitigation, progressively forever. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Finally, to bring the thing up to date, I notice an article in Saturday's paper, dated from Hollywood' and headed "Russia using Hollywood to crush U.S., says Menjou". I understand that Mr. Menjou is a movie actor. I am not going to read the article, but at the end it says:

Communists in Hollywood have caused hundreds opposing them to be fired by ganging up-

That is by communist ganging up.

-on their innocent patriotic victims.

A year ago the nationalists, for whom I have spoken on two or three occasions, were unable to hold meetings in Los Angeles

Human Rights

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

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
IND

Jean-François Pouliot

Independent Liberal

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to a debate like this, which probably is a late result of the reconsecration week of six years ago. I do not know to what extent it will be profitable, but we hear fine expressions of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) calls good will. It is good will for all the nations of the world, and it is a good sign.

But if we are going back to the past, and if we think of what has happened even in this house, we might recall that seldom charity begins at home, and that some members of parliament are more inclined to say to others: "Do as I say, not as I do."

That is something which happens naturally during a war. It is a case of intermittent folly, and the intervals of lucidity are signalized by amnesia. It is a diagnosis I have often made; and I noticed that during the war there was only one way to think, a way contrary to that which has been expressed by the hon. member who has just spoken. During the war one was not permitted to say that he was a red-blooded Canadian. No; one had to be an imperialist; one had to be a colonial; one had to think only in terms of the British empire and the British commonwealth. That was the mental state, not only of one but of all during the war.

I do not know who has hypnotized my colleagues whom I like very much, but it was not only on this side of the house that that feeling existed. It was the feeling among all

groups and parties, with few exceptions. And all seemed to be proud of that inferiority complex toward the empire and the commonwealth. Everybody was proud to be an empire serf or a colonial or commonwealth serf. They were glad of that; and in different language they were repeating what Lord Bennett said at the time he sailed for England, "I am going home"-when everybody was sending him elsewhere.

But that is what happened. During the war I was called a supporter of Hitler by those who were strong for the bill of rights, because I was defending the rights of the farmers, the railway men and those who were helping the war effort while working in overalls. During the war I was told by a cabinet minister that the only duty of a Canadian who was in good health was to enlist, thereby leaving aside all labouring men. And there was no protest in the house.

Moreover I remember at the time the plebiscite bill was being discussed in committee, the chairman, who is no longer in the house-

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

James Horace King (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am sorry to interrupt

the hon. member, but until now I do not think his remarks have been relevant to the motion.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
IND

Jean-François Pouliot

Independent Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

Mr. Speaker, I have been reading most carefully what appears in the motion, and I am inspired by some of the names I see in it. I name nobody, but I should like to make a comparison between what happened in yesteryear and what has been said today.

Naturally, as you know, in court we can examine a witness upon his record. That is not a bad thing. It is permissible to question witnesses upon what we call their credibility.

I am not so sure about the degree of credibility of some of those who have spoken about the bill of rights and about those lofty ideals which I have not yet seen in action.

But, sir, if I read the motion correctly, I find that one of the human rights is freedom of speech; and my freedom of speech was encroached upon by the chairman of the committee of the whole when the plebiscite bill was before that committee. I remember that that gentleman, who is now somewhere else, was railroading the bill through, probably to get spurs-or I do not know what else. I rose in my place and he said, "Section

6 adopted." We were then on section 7. I said, "Mr. Chairman"-and he said, "Section

7 adopted". I said "It is not adopted; I was standing in my place at the time it was

Human Rights

called. I was standing at the time the previous section was called." He said, "It is carried" and it was, finally. Bill of rights!

I remember, sir, that I made reference to the promise made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) to give a million jobs to the veterans. It was sinful to mention that in the house, and he called me a demagogue because I referred to a promise he had not fulfilled.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

What is a demagogue?

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
IND

Jean-François Pouliot

Independent Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I do not know what it is, but it must be a big insult. Bill of rights! I remember that not so long ago some members were insistent about the N.R.M.A. men who had not served the sentence that had been imposed on them. Bill of rights! Bill of rights! They thought that the law was not severe enough upon them and that Quebec was the greatest sinner in that regard. Bill of rights! Bill of rights! How many times did we hear that from people who have now a new flag-the flag of rights? They never speak of duties but of rights, like Robespierre, and the men who drafted the declaration of human rights at the time of the French revolution-les san-culottes. Les

sans-culottes qui parle des droits de l'homme. It is the pantless who speak of the rights of man. I use an historical expression.

How much did we suffer? How much were we insulted by the press? We had here Mr. Cardin, who was a most honourable man, and there were others. There was Mr. Raymond. I do not always agree with him, but he is a most honourable gentleman and there were many others. There were those who crossed the floor with him, and especially my dear friend the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget), who is a most estimable gentleman. We were all called fifth columnists because we were not imperialists, and it takes courage for the member who preceded me (Mr. Jaques) to have said that he was a nationalist. I am not a nationalist; I am a Liberal. I believe in love of country, and I believe it is no sin to be a nationalist; but it takes supreme courage to make that

affirmation in the House of Commons. Why? Because freedom of speech is a fake here. It does not exist. There is an atmosphere which is created to destroy the personality of a member of parliament as soon as he takes the oath of office. We notice that. It is visible. A member of parliament the day after he is sworn in is different from the man he was before he was sworn in. Why? Because there is a special atmosphere here in Ottawa, an atmosphere that reduces the heads of some

people to the size of small oranges as the Indians do in Ecuador. I do not say that to be offensive; I say it because it is true.

Sir, I will tell you of an incident that occurred in 1936. You were not in parliament and the Sergeant-at-Arms was not the one who sits here today. There was a young man from my county, a very nice fellow, who had been appointed a messenger of the House of Commons upon my recommendation. He was doing his work well and was most unobtrusive. No one had complained about him. He was all right. He was a good messenger. One day I had an argument with the then minister of finance, who was not the present Minister of Justice-it was one of his predecessors-and the leader of the opposition, who was Lord Bennett. It was about some high officials who had been under the wing of Mr. Bennett for a time and who had succeeded in making themselves comfortable under the Liberal wing, under Liberal feathers. History repeats itself.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. LOW:

Liberal tail-feathers?

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
IND

Jean-François Pouliot

Independent Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

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

Human Rights

Well, I thought it was cowardly but it happened; it happened under this roof. No bill of rights! No bill of rights! I wonder if with a bill of rights like that it will be better than when I was insulted by Ralston, when he was falsifying my work. Who rose in my defence; who del ended the draftees against Ralston in English discussion; who defended the workers of the soil; who defended those engaged in industry, and who defended the member for Temiscouata? I was defended by my hon. friend the member for Peel; I was defended by my hon. friend the member for Saskatoon City; but I was fighting the fight of the common man without any support in the house most of the time. I had to put up my own fight alone and I suffered a lot, but I did not complain about it.

When I hear the discussion about a bill of rights, I think of most of the speeches that have been made, with few exceptions; and I mention among the exceptions the one that was made just before I spoke, the one that was made by the member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard) the one that was made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), because they were not in the moon when they spoke. They spoke about actual facts. How can we expect to rule the whole world when the leaders of the other countries pay no attention to Canada?

It reminds me of a story of the late Mr. Lapointe, at one time minister of justice. He was brought up in the country; he knew the [DOT]ways of living of the people, and he used to tell with great humour very fine stories that had a touch of philosophy. He had two friends in the county of Kamouraska. One of them was a client of mine. He was a notary public and his initials were T.M.T.-not T.N.T. He had a cousin there. He was not a notary public and his name was Wenceslas, and he used to be called Cariboo. When he spoke, people used to say "Boom, one cariboo; boom, boom, two cariboo." But this is of no importance whatever.

There was a day when it was a great honour to be on the same seat with a member of parliament. In those days there were carriages with two seats but four places. Wenceslas sat in the back where Mr. Lapointe was to sit, leaving, the front seat next to the driver to T.M.T. Then T.M.T. was quite indignant. He said, "Wenceslas, take your place. Sit in the front." Well, the story of Canada is not very different, and I am sorry about it. All the powers tell the duly accredited representatives of Canada, "Take your place, Canada; sit at the tail-end."

Now we are going to reform them. It is purely academic. I find this debate frivolous

and I find it futile. I said that once before on another occasion. I find that nothing will come out of it except expressions of good will which lead nowhere. This house must reform itself. We must not simply speak phrases. We must first set an example of good will, understanding, and tolerance to others. When a member of parliament is speaking here, some hon. members say, "Time, time," or "Quack, quack."

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Douglas Gooderham Ross

Progressive Conservative

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

"Quack" yourself.

Topic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Subtopic:   FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS-OBLIGATIONS UNDER UNITED NATIONS CHARTER-APPOINTMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE
Permalink

May 19, 1947