1952-03-24

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Members of the House of Commons will have learned with profound regret of the death of the distinguished Prime Minister of Ceylon,	the	Right Hon. Don	Stephen
Senanayake.
His loss will be deeply felt in Ceylon, where he served in public life faithfully and with great	distinction for thirty	years. Itwas under	his	leadership that	Ceylon, a
crown colony, attained dominion status in 1948, and became a member of the commonwealth of nations.
I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Senanayake at	the	meetings of the	commonwealth prime ministers in London in 1948, and again in 1951, and learned to value his wisdom and vision, especially about affairs on the Asian continent. It is not only his own country which will mourn his loss; the whole of the commonwealth is saddened by his tragic death. Ceylon has indeed lost one of its faithful servants, and the commonwealth one of its wisest statesmen.
His Excellency the Governor General and I have already expressed the sympathy of the government and people of Canada with the people of Ceylon, and with the members of the Prime Minister's family. To confirm those messages of sympathy, and as a special tribute to the memory of the late Prime Minister, I beg leave to move, seconded by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew):
That as a token of our sympathy for the family of the late Prime Minister, as well as for all the people of this sister state in the commonwealth, we now stand in this chamber for a moment of respectful silence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house rose and stood in silence.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: 
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I should like to join with others in these expressions of sympathy. One of my most valued recollections is a pleasant evening I spent in London with the late Prime Minister of Ceylon and his charming family. He was an exceedingly able man, and we all extend sympathy to the people of Ceylon and to his immediate family in their sad bereavement.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) have spoken for us. We should like to be associated on the record with what has been said.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the annual report of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the year 1951, together with a copy of the accounts of the corporation.
I move that this report be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to lay on the table the annual report, in English and in French, of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ended December 31, 1951.
Copies of this report are being distributed to the members of the House of Commons.



PAY INCREASES FOR TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? Will the minister comment on the press report in Saturday's Ottawa Journal, a clipping from which I sent over to him, in reference to temporary employees on the staffs of this building? Can these employees expect their pay increases to come through at an early date?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I shall be happy to bring that matter to Mr. Speaker's attention, and I feel sure that it will be looked into promptly.


Mr. Speaker:: I might assure the house that the matter has received my attention and that of the officials of this house, and that a report will be made shortly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.



REFORESTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. Kickham (Kings):: I should like to direct the following question to the Minister of Resources and Development. Has an agreement been entered into with the province of Prince Edward Island with regard to a reforestation plan, and, if so, can the minister give the house the financial terms of the agreement?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the federal government and the government of Prince Edward Island have signed an agreement for the fiscal years 1951-52 to 1955-56 inclusive, for reforestation of waste lands.
Under the terms of this agreement Canada will pay to the province in each of the fiscal years 1951-52 and 1952-53 sums not to exceed $7,500 per annum. The maximum payments that may be made by Canada to the province

for the same purpose in the fiscal years subsequent to 1952-53 shall be subject to later negotiation.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the intention of the government to have the agriculture committee called before Easter to discuss the matters which the government have indicated they intend to have referred to it at this session?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be possible to take our men away from the task which they are now carrying through to completion at Regina, and elsewhere, in order to have them here to give evidence prior to the Easter vacation. I would hope that they might be in a position to be here as soon as possible after the Easter vacation, and they will be, provided there are no further outbreaks-we hope that there will not be any.
In order to relieve the minds of some of those who are most interested in the matter, I might read a short report on our activities up to date, which might be helpful.
I should like to give the house a brief statement of the position with respect to our efforts to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease.
By March 14 all animals suffering from the disease or in contact with the disease had been destroyed and buried safely. The animals destroyed consisted of: 1,073 cattle; 97 sheep; 129 hogs; 2 horses (test animals); 1 goat; 1,667 poultry and 13,272 eggs. The poultry and eggs were destroyed because they were on infected premises, and it was regarded as unsafe to allow them to be moved elsewhere.
Packing plants have been cleansed and disinfected, and slaughtering operations on a restricted scale can be resumed in the near future. Cleaning and disinfection of other infected premises are proceeding but cannot be satisfactorily completed until warmer weather sets in. Meantime all such premises must be kept under quarantine.
Although many reports of disease, both within and outside of the quarantine area, have been investigated, no cases of foot-and-mouth have been found at any time or place outside of the quarantine area. Farm to

Inquiries of the Ministry
farm inspections and reinspections are con- Mr. Argue: I should like to ask the Minister tinuing in both the quarantine area and the of Agriculture a supplementary question. Is buffer zone. All results so far have been the minister or his department considering negative. Many of the investigations have establishing regulations to allocate the avail-been conducted in eastern provinces, in able market for cattle amongst the farmers most cases on farms which received western who have them to sell, so that each one will feeder cattle last fall.	have a fair chance of marketing some cattle?
Special inspections have been arranged for a number of slaughter houses in the quarantine area in order that slaughter may be resumed and meat distributed to urban communities. This slaughter, together with partial operation of regularly inspected abattoirs, is now providing the main supply of meat in the quarantine area at prices which appear to be satisfactory to both producers and consumers. These prices are closely in line with, or slightly higher than, those prevailing in Winnipeg markets.
Provincial embargoes and restrictions are still hampering the free flow of livestock and meats through normal marketing channels. However, there has been considerable relaxation of these restrictions in recent days. Last week end saw the movement of some 60 carloads of livestock and more than 15 carloads of meat from Alberta to British Columbia. Hogs are again moving from Saskatchewan points outside the quarantine and buffer zone to their normal market in Winnipeg. It is hoped that further developments along these lines will take place in the near future.
The outward movement of livestock from public stockyards in Saskatchewan and Manitoba is still being prohibited under orders of the veterinary director general. This is being done because there may be still a chance of a diseased animal getting into those yards. If that should happen it would be desirable to confine the disease to the yard rather than risk having contacts shipped back to the country. If no further cases occur, it is hoped that all restrictions on the stockyards, excepting those in Regina, can be lifted soon after the snow disappears from the area in southern Saskatchewan from which disease might still be carried.


Percy Ellis Wright: May I ask a supplementary question? When the committee is called, will the government have placed on the agenda of the agriculture committee the subjects which the farmers union of western Canada have indicated they want discussed?


James Garfield Gardiner: The house will decide what they will submit to the committee when the committee is called. At this time I cannot indicate anything which will be submitted in addition to this one matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume that what the
hon. member has in mind is the general marketing of livestock right across the country-or is it just within this quarantined area?


Mr. Argue:: I might explain the basis of my question, Mr. Speaker. I saw a report that the government was considering regulations which would allocate the available market within Saskatchewan to livestock producers; in other words they were considering placing a quota on the marketing of livestock in order to distribute the market among the producers.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only control of that kind which is in effect has to do with the quarantine area and the buffer area; and any arrangements which it has been necessary to make have been agreed to internally. There is no difficulty there at all. The stock that is coming on the market is being marketed, and the price level to consumers is satisfactory. Up to the moment we have had less difficulty there than anywhere else in Canada.



EXPLOSIVES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. A 20-pound live incendiary bomb was found by boys outside the Petawawa camp. Was that bomb from military stores, or can the minister say if any investigation has been made?


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my attention was
drawn to this matter this morning, and of course, it is being investigated. The investigations made thus far, and reported to me by telephone, indicate that this was not a 20-pound bomb, but a 2-inch mortar bomb; that it was not found outside the camp, but inside the camp; that it was not found at the side of a road, as reported in the newspaper, but on a mortar range where bombs have been used by the armed forces.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Otherwise
the report is correct?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Was it found at all?


Brooke Claxton: The situation with regard to the employment of ranges where they are

Inquiries of the Ministry using live ammunition and bombs is a difficult one. Near Petawawa there are a number of communities, including particularly Pembroke and Petawawa village, and the people are not excluded from the camp because they form part of one and the same community. On the other hand there are danger signs, and every time an event of this kind occurs it leads us to look again to see if we are taking all possible precautions.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask the minister if any consideration has been given to a suitable fence to keep the public out of that area?


Brooke Claxton: Such a fence might be 250 miles long.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Not where the houses are.


An hon. Member:: Lower taxes!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: There would not enough nails to build that fence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries. Has he any further information about the situation created by foreign draggers operating on Newfoundland local fishing grounds?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: thank the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo for giving notice of his intention to ask this question. Up to a few minutes ago no full report has been received from our investigators. It is therefore impossible for me to add very much to what I stated in the house on Friday last. Arrangements have been made to have an R.C.A.F. plane take pictures of the area. The R.C.M.P. are co-operating in every way with the officials of our department in making a complete investigation. When a full report is received I shall be glad to give it to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Higgins:: May I ask a supplementary question? If the complaints are found to be justified, as mentioned by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, what action will be taken?



LAKE ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works?

Before I ask my question, may I express, on behalf of all hon. members, the great pleasure that we have in his being back with us in an improved state of health.
My question is: Will the minister give consideration to having a survey made by his departmental officials of the acute erosion which is taking place on the Canadian shores of lake Ontario? I think the minister is aware of the difficulties that are being experienced from day to day. Something ought to be done before anything more serious occurs.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: I thank the hon. gentleman for his kind words. If he is pleased to see me, I am pleased to be back.
As to his inquiry about the erosion of the shores of lake Ontario, I did receive a delegation some days ago complaining of the con-be dition, and one of the engineers of my department was instructed to make a special study of the levels to see whether we could find the exact cause of the erosion. If there is any federal responsibility I will submit the case to my colleagues.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs? Will the special committee on veterans affairs be established before Easter so that those who are counting on the legislation to be considered by that committee will know what to expect?


Hon. Hugues Lapoinie (Minisier of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to have a resolution concerning legislation on veterans affairs on the order paper at a very early date. As soon as that resolution is on the order paper the special committee will be set up.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order for second reading of Senate bills:
Mr. Speaker:: Certain divorce bills; second reading. Shall I call the bills?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. May I point out we have not yet received the evidence in these cases. I think the bills should stand.


An hon. Member:: You mean to say you
read it?


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the bills stand?

Questions


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Orders stand.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Thatcher:: What was the total money loaned directly by the government or any agency thereof under section
31A, to house builders unable to obtain a loan under NHA from regular lending institutions (a) in cities with a population over 5,000; (i) in 1950; (ii) in 1951; (b) in cities with a population under 5,000 (i) in 1950; (ii) in 1951?


Robert Henry Winters: The total amount of loans approved by the government through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under section 31A of the National Housing Act to persons unable to obtain a joint loan from approved lending institutions under the provisions of the National Housing Act was as follows:
Municipalities	with a	Municipalities	withpopulation of	5,000	a population	ofand over (including	less than 5,000	metropolitan	areas)	1950	1951	1950	1951($000)	($000)	($000)	($000)Home ownership	
880	276	1,495	553Defence workers 	
Rural housing 	
Rental purpose (incl.	rental	1,527	14	8insurance) 	
21,640	6,665	310	8Total 	
22,520	8,468	1,819	569


ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES-REGINA DISTRICT  BURNS FEED LOT
Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many head of cattle were in the Burns and Company plant or feed lot when the quarantine was imposed on December 28, 1951, and how were these cattle disposed of?
2.	Were any of the above cattle suffering from any disease?
3.	If so, what tests, if any, were made to determine the nature of the disease?
4.	What was the result of each test?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	207. On December 28 a number were diagnosed as suffering from vesicular stomatitis and the quarantine was imposed. All were slaughtered in the Burns and Company plant or subsequently destroyed as having been infected with or exposed to foot-and-mouth disease.
2.	Yes, 30 animals exhibiting symptoms of stomatitis.
3.	Diagnosis of December 28 was based on physical examination of live animals. Because of the occurrence of several cases of the disease in the vicinity of Regina in the second week of February and a recurrence of it within the Burns establishment on February 12, some condition more serious than vesicular stomatitis was suspected; therefore, samples of infected material were taken on February 13 and 14 and on February
14 were sent to the Animal Diseases Research Institute at Hull, Quebec, for laboratory tests. On February 17 disease was diagnosed as foot-and-mouth on basis of physical examination. Result of laboratory tests completed on February 24 confirmed this diagnosis.
4.	Answered above.


IMMIGRANTS-MAINTENANCE BY DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Mr. While (Middlesex East):: 1.	How many immigrants are being maintained by the Department of Labour in each of the following centres (a) St. Paul l'Ermite, Quebec;
(b)	Ajax, Ontario?
2.	How many of these immigrants in each of the above centres are (a) German; (b) from the United Kingdom; (c) all others?
3.	Of these totals, how many are age groups (a) from 1 to 18 years; (b) from 18 to 35 years;
(c)	over 35 years?


Mr. Gregg:: 1.	(a) 703]
^ as at 24 March, 1952.
(b) 714 J
2.	(a) St. Paul l'Ermite, 28; Ajax, 37; (b) St. Paul l'Ermite, nil; Ajax, 16; (c) St. Paul l'Ermite, 675; Ajax, 661.
3.	(a) St. Paul l'Ermite, German, nil; from United Kingdom, nil; others, 89.
Ajax, German, 2; from United Kingdom 3; others, 146.

Questions
3. (b) St. Paul 1'Ermite, German, 23; from United Kingdom, nil; others, 445.
Ajax, German, 28; from United Kingdom, 11; others, 388.
(c)	St. Paul 1'Ermite, German, 5; from United Kingdom, nil; others, 141.
Ajax, German, 7; from United Kingdom, 2; others, 127.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What number of immigrants entered Canada each month during the year 1951 through the ports of Halifax, Saint John, Quebec, Montreal and Vancouver?
2.	What was the number by nationalities?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.
Immigration to Canada through the under-mentioned ports, calendar year 1951
Halifax	Saint John	Quebec	Montreal	Vancouver Totals	January 	
3,357	280	24	443	177	4,281February 	
4,843	1,617	29	579	162	7,230March 	
7,760	1,466	37	782	213	10,258April 	
8,144	70	3,015	826	217	12,272May 	
9,920	12	6,166	1,174	194	17,466June 	
9,779	14	5,821	929	192	16,735July 	
8,888	3	6,128	1,376	262	16,657August 	
7,925	8	4,889	1,550	159	14,531September 	
3,672	25	5,630	913	194	10,434October 	
5,072	28	13,104	1,084	182	19,470November 	
10,101	782	6,767	1,393	160	19,203December 	
14,379	1,781	66	603	234	17,063Totals 	
93,840	6,086	51,676	11,652	2,346	165,600Source: statistical unit,	immigration branch.	2.	Portuguese ..	42
Immigration to Canada showing nationalities, calendar year 1951.
Albanian 			 58
Austrian 			 3,628
Belgian 			 3,086
British 			 34,790
Bulgarian 			 395
Central American 			 16
Chinese 			 2,689
Czechoslovakian 			 3,905
Danish 			 4,666
Dutch 			 19,137
Estonian 			 4,748
Finnish 			 3,949
French 			 6,811
German 			 25^813
Greek 			 2,802
Hungarian 		
Icelandic 			 17
Irish Republican 			 669
Israeli 			 333
Italian 			 23,432
Japanese 				 4
Latvian 			 2,830
Lithuanian 			 1,373
Mexican 			 30
Norwegian 			 916
Polish 		
Roumanian	
Russian	
South Ajnerican	
Spanish	
Swedish	
Swiss	
Syrian	
Turkish	
Ukrainian	
U.S.A. citizens	
West Indian (not British)
Yugoslavian	
Others	
2,344
3,744
552
1,267
54
6,904
5,573
Source:
branch.
Total	 194,391
statistical unit,	immigration


PUBLICATION &quot;2 MINUTES OF EMPLOYMENT FACTS&quot;
Mr. Fleming:: 1.	How long has the Department of Labour been publishing "2 Minutes of Employment Facts?"
2.	How many copies have been printed, by years?
3.	How many have been distributed, by years?
4.	What was the total cost of compiling, editing, printing and distributing the same in each year since publication was commenced?


Mr. Gregg:: 1.	Since July, 1946.
2.
English	French
1946-	1947	200,000	10,0001947-	1948	600,000	100,0001948-	1949	553,000	104,0501949-	1950	615,500	103,8001950-	1951	645,000	125,8001951-	1952	581,000	114,800
(To Feb. 29/52 only)
3.
1946-	1947	
210,0001947-	1948	
700,0001948-	1949	
657,0501949-	1950	
712,3001950-	1951	
753,8001951-	1952	
668,800
(To Feb. 29/52 only)
4.	The cost of editing, compiling and distribution is based on the salaries of those engaged in such work together with the number of hours involved; the cost of these services must therefore be given as only approximate.
The total cost of compiling, editing, printing and distributing the same in each year since publication was commenced:
Compiling,
editing
Printing and and distribution
paper	(estimated)	Total1946-47	$ 2,628	$ 400	$ 3,0281947-48	7,149	800	7,9491948-49	5,487	800	6,2871949-50	8,799	900	9,6991950-51	11,526	1,000	12,526*1951-52	6,853	750	7,603
* to November 30/51 only available; final accounts not yet rendered by queen's printer.
SUPERANNUATED CIVIL SERVANTS Mr. Thatcher:
How many federal civil servants were superannuated at the age of (a) sixty; (b) sixty-five and placed on pension, in each of the fiscal years ending March 31, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951?


Mr. Sinclair:: Fiscal year Ended	(a)	(b)March 31	Age 60	Age 651948	44	3691949	63	3701950	84	3761951 55704-46	111	386
Questions


PARCEL POST RATES TO UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What are the rates for sending parcels of (a) food; (b) other items, by parcel post to the United Kingdom?
2.	How long have the present rates been in effect?
3.	What were the rates before the last change was made?
4.	How long had those rates been in effect?
5.	What were the rates previous thereto?
6.	What are the reasons for the most recent change in such rates?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	(a) and (b) The parcel post rates on all
articles mailed to Great Britain are as follows:
1 lb., $ .25; 2 lb., .45; 3 lb., .60; 4 lb., .80; 5 lb., .95; 6 lb., $1.10; 7 lb., $1.30; 8 lb., $1.45; 9	lb., $1.65; 10 lb.,	$1.80.Over 10 lb. and	up to	15 lb.,	$2.25.Over 15 lb. and	up to	20 lb.,	$3.25.2.	Since 1st January, 1952.3.	(a) Ordinary parcel rates:1 lb., $ .25; 2 lb.,	.40; 3	lb., .55;	4 lb.,	.70;	5lb., .85; 6 lb, $1.00;	7 lb.,	$1.15; 8	lb., $1.30;	9
lb., $1.45; 10 lb., $1.50.
Over 10 lb. and up to 15 lb., $2.00.
Over 15 lb. and up to 20 lb., $2.50.
(b) Special gift parcels rates (applying to food, used clothing and soap):
1 to 5 lb. inclusive, $.50.
Over 5 lb and up to 10 lb., $1.00.
Over 10 lb. and up to 15 lb., $1.50.
Over 15 lb. and up to 20 lb., $2.00.
4.	From 1st April 1949 to 31st December 1951.
5.	Prior to 1st April 1949 rates on ordinary and gift parcels were:
1 lb., $ .25; 2 lb., .40; 3 lb., .55; 4 lb., .70; 5 lb., .85; 6 lb., $1.00; 7 lb., $1.15; 8 lb., $1.30; 9 lb., $1.45; 10 lb., $1.50.
Over 10 lb. and up to 15 lb., $2.00.
Over 15 lb. and up to 20 lb., $2.50.
6.	(a) The concessionary charges made by Great Britain on food parcels were cancelled.
(b)	The British postal administration increased its charges for handling transportation and delivery of parcels of Canadian origin.
(c)	Concessionary rates on transatlantic sea conveyance of "gift" parcels automatically lapsed.
(d)	Increased costs of handling and transportation in Canada as reflected in increased domestic parcel post rates.
(e)	The British post office has expressed its inability to continue the reduced handling charges formerly in force in regard to "gift" parcels.

Orders for Returns QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


CANADAIR-ELECTRIC BOAT COMPANY
Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What was the authorized capital of the first management company of Canadair Limited?
2.	What amount of such capital was outstanding at the time of the sale of Canadair Limited to Electric Boat Company?
3.	When did the Electric Boat Company acquire the controlling interest in Canadair Limited?
4.	Who were the shareholders in Canadair Limited after its sale to the Electric Boat Company?
5.	How many shares did each of these shareholders hold?
6.	What was the total cost to the Canadian government of the special tooling, including jigs, tools, dies, gauges and fixtures necessary for the production of the North Star aircraft?
7.	Were tenders called by the government for the sale of the Cartierville plant and the equipment therein?
8.	If so, what tenders were received?
9.	Were any other bids or offers received for the Cartierville plant?
10.	If so, from what companies were bids received and what was the amount of each bid?
11.	Did Electric Boat Company place a bid or tender for the Cartierville plant and the equipment therein?
12.	If so, what was the amount of the bid?


TEXTILES
Mr. Ward:: 1.	What is the present Canadian duty on imported (a) cotton textiles: (b) woollen textiles?
2.	What percentage of Canadian consumption of (a) cotton textiles; (b) woollen textiles; (c) rayon textiles; (d) nylon textiles, is imported?
3.	What percentage of Canadian production of (a) cotton textiles; (b) woollen textiles, is exported?


VETERANS HOSPITALS
Mr. Bryce:: What are the rates of pay for kitchen maids, ward maids and ambulance drivers at the following hospitals:	(a) Camp Hill; (b) Sunnybrook;
(c) Deer Lodge; (d) Shaughnessy?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Gordon Knapman Fraser: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged during the past ten years, between the government of Canada, or any department or agency thereof, and any individual or group of individuals regarding the creating of a bird sanctuary on the Ouse river.


Robert Henry Winters: Subject to the usual reservations about permission from the provinces with respect to their correspondence.


POULTRY-NEWCASTLE DISEASE
Mr. Herridge:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, and other documents in possession of the Department of Agriculture in connection with Newcastle disease, dated since January 1, 1948.
[Mr. Langlois (Gaspd.j


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no objection to the motion, but I should like to say to the hon. member that the wording of it would call for the production of all papers which may have passed between officials of the department and from officials to myself, which is privileged. I take it that what the hon. member desires to have is all the telegrams and letters and everything of that kind, between this government and the British Columbia government and between individuals in British Columbia and elsewhere and ourselves.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is correct.


SASKATCHEWAN RIVER DAM AND IRRIGATION PROJECT
John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and1 other documents that have passed between any department of government and/or the water control board, and the provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, since the first day of September, 1951, relating to the Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Subject to the usual
reservations with respect to correspondence from provincial governments.



HUMAN RIGHTS


John George Diefenbaker: That, in the opinion of this house, immediate consideration should be given to the advisability of introducing a bill or declaration of rights to assure amongst other rights:
1.	Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and of radio;
2.	That habeas corpus shall not be abrogated or suspended except by parliament;
3.	That no one shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, and in no case by order in council;
4.	That no tribunal or commission shall have the power to compel the giving of evidence by anyone who is denied counsel or other constitutional safeguards.
And that as a preliminary step the government should consider the advisability of submitting for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada the question as to the degree to which fundamental freedoms of religion, speech and of the press and the preservation of the constitutional rights of the individual are matters of federal or provincial jurisdiction.
He said: I hope that I and those who follow me may discuss this subject with those qualities which Mr. Gladstone so much admired in Lord Aberdeen when he said in effeot that: Whatever he discusses, he discusses with calmness, judgment, knowledge and moderation.
It is in that spirit that I rise to move this resolution, the proposal embodied in which over the years has been near and dear to me; indeed, when I first came to

the House of Commons, I mentioned it as a necessary step in the maintenance of freedom.
May I at the outset acknowledge the courtesy of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), who was considerate enough to allow my motion to be on the order paper ahead of his, and who declined to proceed the other day with his own motion. That is something I sincerely appreciate.
I shall not enter into any provocative arguments; the matter, Mr. Speaker, is too serious for that. Only a few moments ago we witnessed a moving scene in the House of Commons; once more the real meaning of freedom in every part of this commonwealth was epitomized. This house, thousands of miles removed from Ceylon, stood in silent tribute to a man whose contribution to freedom in the commonwealth has meant much over a period of thirty years. In granting freedom to Ceylon and to India, again -the abiding principles of freedom within this commonwealth were exemplified; and further evidence that the vital strength of freedom is the grant of freedom.
Since I have been in parliament representatives of various parts of the British commonwealth have spoken on the floor of this House of Commons. All of us remember Prime Minister Menzies during the early days of the war at a time when the commonwealth stood alone. We remember Winston Churchill, when, at one of the darkest periods in our history, after the commonwealth had stood alone for a long year, he stood where the Clerk now sits and delivered an address that aroused freedom-loving people everywhere in the world.
Today we have witnessed a remarkable exemplification of the principle of freedom of religion within the British commonwealth. For in Canada, a Christian country, the membership of this house stands in appreciation of one of Buddhist faith who had made an outstanding contribution to freedom! I think of another moving scene in this chamber when Louis St. Laurent, as Prime Minister of Canada, 190 years after Wolfe and Montcalm died together for freedom, welcomed Prime Minister Nehru of India, also 190 years after Plassey. That revealed the meaning of freedom and everything that freedom proclaims.
I am not going to review in detail the historical development within our country of the concept of freedom. It is represented by those great charters-Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Petition of Right, Habeas Corpus, and the Quebec Act and the British North America Act, peculiar to our country;
55704-46J
Human Rights
and by the Statute of Westminster, whereby all dominions of the British commonwealth became equals with the United Kingdom.
The first occasion on which I brought the need of a bill of rights to the attention of the house was in the form of an amendment, on March 7, 1946, at the time when there was brought before parliament a citizenship bill which ensured that thereafter Canadians should have citizenship within and without Canada. On that occasion, I moved that there be deemed to be a provision, in every certificate of naturalization, including a bill of rights. It was pointed out, and properly so, that if it was provided for only in so far as naturalized citizens were concerned, it would be an anachronism in so far as native-born Canadians were concerned. What I intend to do now is to discuss, first, the question whether there is a general demand in Canada for a bill of rights or a declaration of rights. Second, is there need of one? Third, what should be among the terms, or the tentative terms, subject to intensive consideration later by parliament? Fourth, what would a bill of rights accomplish? Finally, would it be binding, and how should it be brought into effect-by statute, by constitutional amendment, or by declaration, in the latter case simply setting forth in concrete form the idealism of Canadians, while having no effect so far as our constitutional rights are concerned and their maintenance by the courts?
The quest for freedom and the desire to maintain freedom and to assure freedom is not the monopoly of any political party-and it is in that spirit I speak. Internationally a declaration of great principles was made in 1945 when the preamble of the United Nations charter was drafted in San Francisco. The statesman who drafted that preamble was Jan Christiaan Smuts who some thirty years before had drafted article X of the league of nations.
I saw him draft that preamble, the first rough draft, on the back of a cigarette box, in the memorial hall in San Francisco. His life was a revelation of the meaning of British freedom. He had devoted his early life to fighting against everything for which the British commonwealth stands and, in his latter years, became the mouthpiece of the finest principles of our commonwealth and of democracy.
In the preamble these words appear:
We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war-

Human Rights
I shall leave out those words which are not pertinent to this discussion.
-and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and smalland-
-and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours . . . declare this to be the United Nations charter.
The declaration of human rights is predicated upon a realization by the statesmen of the world that there can be no peace unless there is freedom, and that wherever discrimination exists because of race or colour anywhere in the world there is soil [DOT]that is productive of potential future wars.
I wish to make clear that I am proud of my citizenship and everything it means, as well as the measure of freedom that it affords. With that heritage, with our British and French traditions, no Canadian can assert that Canadians are not blessed with bountiful freedom.
But, sir, two world wars in one generation have created conditions perilous to the preservation of civil liberty. Indeed, the continuing world emergency since 1945 has been no less perilous to civil liberty. And Canadians, as well as peoples in other parts of the British commonwealth, must be assured that human rights and fundamental freedoms, placed in. pawn as security for victory, or lost temporarily as a result of design by parliament, shall not be lost permanently because of the apathy or the failure of the people to demand their restoration.
"Civil liberties" has various definitions. One of the most outstanding was given by Mr. Justice Keiller Mackay in a judgment rendered in the province of Ontario in 1942 in the Drummond Wren case. There have been others in the Supreme Court of Canada during the last two years and in particular one by Mr. Justice Rand and another by Mr. Justice Kellock.
But the one that, to me, comprises in most unique form the concept of civil liberty is that given by Mr. Justice Murphy, late of the United States supreme court, when he said this:
The priceless thing without which life loses its dignity and becomes only a hopeless form of spiritual slavery.
The concept of civil liberty is the translation of personal freedom into practice; and the pages of history indicate that only as civil liberty is preserved can human dignity be enriched.
The hall-mark of freedom is a recognition of the sacred personality of man, and its

acceptance decries discrimination on the basis of race or creed or colour. Canadians have a message to give to the world. We are composed of many racial groups, each of which must realize that only by forbearance and mutual respect, only by denial of antagonism or prejudice based on race, or creed, or even surname, can breaches in unity be avoided in our country.
National unity in Canada is not only an ideal-it is a necessity-based on ordinary common sense. It is because I believe this that I have advocated over the years the substance of the resolution before the house. It is because I believe that there can be no freedom where appeal to the courts is denied, that there can be no freedom unless there is equality before the law, that I advocate a bill of rights. History shows that a closed door to the courts is an open door to denial of the freedom of the individual.
Great as is our inheritance, events in recent years demand that we review from time to time what is our inheritance, to ascertain whether any of our freedoms are being lost either intentionally or by default, and how far the principle of the heritage of freedom that is ours and that we take for granted is ours to to enjoy. There is no denying to every Canadian his right to the certainty that hi9 heritage is indeed his. Canadians have the right to be assured that the feeling of possession is indeed a reality.
I take the simple example of a man owning a house, it may be subject to a mortgage. Our heritage comprises the title deeds of freedom and it is for us to see that the mortgage imposed during perilous days shall not diminish those freedoms to the point where they become but memories of the heritage.
The preservation of our democratic way of life requires that Canada shall maintain the spiritual things of freedom. By freedom I do not mean the right to do wrong; but the right to be wrong. Freedom does not consist in thinking what the majority believes or directs shall be thought; for, when all think the same, no one thinks. Freedom means the right of each of us to come to our own conclusions according to our own consciences, abridged only to the extent that the same degree of freedom will be assured to every other citizen.
I have generalized for the purpose of summarizing what is my concept of freedom. Freedom means that we do not have to think alike; we do not have to be told what we shall read, or hear, or speak, or write. Freedom cannot survive if thought is outlawed. Experience has shown that freedom

is not always safe in the custody of an overwhelmingly powerful government supported by an overwhelming majority. Large parliamentary majorities do not always assure omnicompetence in the preservation of freedom.
The danger to freedom following two world wars is not confined to Canada, and in support I quote from the words of an outstanding Englishman, Lord Reading, when he introduced a measure in the British House of Lords in 1947 for the preservation of freedom. He said:
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 that It may even be deliberately counterfeited without Immediate detection.
It is no 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.
And in 1951 in the British House of Lords Viscount Samuel said:
During the last thirty or forty years, imperceptibly, almost unconsciously, here a little and there a little, there have been encroachments upon that great and precious heritage.
I do not suggest today that we have lost, or are in danger of losing, those liberties, but I do suggest that they have been again and again impaired, that that process is still continuing, and that it needs to be stopped and reversed.
Even now, after the peace, or semi-peace, of the last five years, not all these liberties have been restored, and there is danger that some of these restrictions may be allowed unnecessarily to slip into our permanent system of government.
What should be done to prevent encroachments on freedom? To the United States citizen and to the citizens of thirty other countries, including India and the republic of Ireland, the belief is held that there can be no assured freedom in modern times without guaranteed civil rights. That view is supported from one end of Canada to the other by editorial comment in leading newspapers to which I could make reference. However, I think the general summary was given in an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press some two years ago, which said:
No one denies that Canada is fortunate almost beyond all countries in the extent and vitality of its human freedoms. There is no need to discuss the question of civil liberty in the language of panic. The task before us is to keep and enrich our legacy of freedom by removing the blots that have unfortunately fallen on our record, and by making a bill of rights part of the law of the land as a protection for even the most unpopular or weakest minority in the legitimate expression of its views. Parliament would be well advised to deal with this matter in a constructive spirit in the present session.
Human Rights
When I first brought this matter to the attention of parliament-it has since been brought up by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll)-there were few who saw the danger of the constant erosion of our personal rights and our fundamental freedoms. It is I think now beyond argument that our personal rights have been diminished because democratic processes have proved too slow in the years of war to attain that degree of certainty and efficiency which was so necessary to victory.
Since the war the movement for a national bill of rights has become general in our country. One petition was filed in parliament in 1947 signed by some 500,000 Canadians, and another in 1949 signed by over 600,000 Canadians, divided approximately as follows:
Ontario	 224,000
Quebec	 70,000
Maritimes	 46,000
The prairies	 176,000
British Columbia	 108,000
The demand has been general, not only from the people but from many organizations, including the Canadian Daily Newspapers Association-which is above any consideration of bias. Various public bodies and churches have given their support.
There are many other organizations represented in other briefs. I want to refer to what the Canadian Daily Newspapers Association said in its representation to one of the committees of parliament. I quote:
. . . the absence of constitutional safeguards against them not only prove that freedom of speech and freedom of the press lack adequate safeguards in Canada . . .
Then on page 5 of the same submission the association representing 86 of the 89 English and French daily newspapers in Canada, and 99.4 per cent of the combined circulation of all the daily newspapers in Canada made the recommendation that:
No act of the parliament of Canada nor of the legislature of any province shall abridge the freedom of speech or of the press or of assembly or of worship or the right to petition the parliament of Canada or the legislature of any province for the redress of grievances.
And further:
In Canada we have been coasting insecurely upon British precedents and sometimes violating them, and in the light of Canada's membership in the United Nations and its responsibilities as a member, the Canadian Daily Newspapers Association urges that the parliamentary committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms give favourable consideration to a constitutional amendment guaranteeing these fundamental freedoms.
Only in the last few days one of the great religious leaders of our country, Cardinal McGuigan, dealt with this question of freedom of the press, when speaking in Toronto on March 22, he said:

Human Rights
One of the greatest safeguards of the freedom of free peoples is the freedom of the press. It is a precious but precarious heritage which they must vigilantly preserve. Confronted by its tyrannical suppression in totalitarian states, free peoples today are extremely conscious of its value. Are they equally aware of the opposite error-its degeneration into mere licence in the hands of the greedy and the irresponsible?
At this point I divert to point out that the press has been brought recently before the courts of the land charged with contempt of court. There have been several cases, one in the city of Ottawa and another in the town of Cornwall. I have no cause to object to contempt of court proceedings, but I do think that the time has come to make provision for the right of appeal against the decisions rendered by judges in such proceedings. Appeal is the only way in which unanimity of decisions can be secured. It is also an assurance that justice shall not depend upon the judgment of one judge.
Various churches and organizations are giving their support to a Canadian bill of rights. I have before me the representations made by Dr. R. S. K. Seeley, provost of Trinity college, university of Toronto, on behalf of the Civil Rights Association of Canada, in which he set forth in detail the need for a bill of rights for the preservation of religion within this country. Had I the time, I should like to quote extensively from the summary of representations which is to be found at page 130 of the Senate special committee report of April 28, 1950. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it be placed on Hansard. It is to be found in one of the reports of the Senate, and it summarizes the situation in a manner that I think would be of interest to members, generally.


Major James William Coldwell: I sympathize with the request of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, but the other day I said that I thought we would have to object whenever a document was to be placed on record. I regret that this is the first instance in which I have found cause to object, and I am sorry to do it because of the circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is what happens when rules are established. I know the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will agree with me when I say that there is nothing so detrimental to justice as a judgment, binding as a precedent, that is founded on a decision that is not justifiable, but has become a precedent.


Mr. Stick:: The laws of the Medes and Persians.


John George Diefenbaker: That is correct.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. member that at no time have the rules allowed a statement to be placed on Hansard

without unanimous consent of the house. Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to have this statement placed on Hansard?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I objected to it.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I shall read the latter part of it.	_
Now it is indeed on the basis of Christian doctrines and the Christian values which have been accepted by our society that we can justify a declaration of human rights against those whose systems of thought and whose policies deny to the individual any rights of his own. It appears that usually a declaration of human rights assumes that human rights are desirable as an axiomatic proposition, that it does not go into an inquiry of why it is assumed that human rights are desirable. And it appears to us as axiomatic only because we have absorbed into our corporate thinking the Christian doctrine of man on which those human rights are based. According to this Christian doctrine. every individual man is of supreme value in the sight of God, for he is made in the image of God, is called to be a child of God and has as his heritage eternal life; and every man must therefore have freedom to respond to the call of God and be given opportunities whereby the whole of his personality may be fully developed to the glory of God and in the service of God. Without these elementary human rights man cannot use completely and to the full the talents with which God has endowed him. For those reasons, you see, a bill of rights is consonant with Christian principles and would receive the wholehearted support of the Christian people of Canada.
Dr. Seeley pointed out that in the brief he presented he represented many of the Christian churches of this country, and also represented organizations of the Jewish faith.
A while ago I mentioned that some of the churches gave support to a Canadian bill of rights. I might add that in presenting his brief he represented the Church of England in Canada, the Baptist Federation of Canada, the Churches of Christ (Disciples), the Evangelical United Brethren church, the Presbyterian church in Canada, the Reformed Episcopal church, the Ukrainian Orthodox church, the United Church of Canada, the Salvation Army, the Society of Friends, and affiliated members, the national council of the Y.M.C.A., the national council of the Y.W.C.A., and the Student Christian Movement of Canada. Many leaders of thought across this country have given their undivided support to a bill of rights and I mention just a few of those who have done so. Starting in Vancouver: Dr. A. E. Grauer; Dr. Norman MacKenzie, president of the university of British Columbia and member of the Massey commission; Elmore Philpott; in Alberta, Mr. Justice L. Y. Cairns; F. G. Winspear, former president of the Canadian Council of Chambers of Commerce; Saskatoon, Dean F. C. Cronkite, university of Saskatchewan; Regina, the premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Douglas; Winnipeg, Victor Sifton, president of the

Winnipeg Free Press; Grant Dexter; Dr. A. W. Trueman, former president of the university of Manitoba; in Ottawa, Mrs. John Bird; Patrick Conroy, now in Washington; Mr. Mosher. Then there is a list of members of parliament, whose names I shall not place on the record. In Toronto we find the late Dr. Peter Bryce; Andrew Brewin, Q. C.; Dr. W. A. Cameron; Oakley Dalgleish, editor of the Globe and Mail; Rabbi A. L. Feinberg; Irving Himel; George McCul-lagh, president of the Globe and Mail; Sir Ernest MacMillan; Dr. E. J. Pratt; A. F. W. Plumptre; Dr. Stanley Russell; Dr. Sidney Smith, president of the University of Toronto; B. K. Sandwell; Dr. Malcolm Wallace; in Windsor, Mayor Arthur J. Reaume, M.L.A.; in Kingston, Professor A. R. M. Lower; in Montreal, C. C. Papineau-Couture; Mr. George V. Ferguson, editor of the Montreal Star and Mrs. Gwethalyn Graham; Dr. J. C. Meakins; Dr. Penfield; F. R. Scotty-and so on. I could continue to name leaders in church and state who stand committed to a bill of rights for Canada but the foregoing list provides a sufficient cross-section. I could give example after example to show why a bill of rights is necessary. I content myself with reading, unless anyone wants the detailed examples which show the need of a bill of rights, what the Winnipeg Free Press said in an editorial in answer to those who say that paper charters are no substitute for the will of freedom:
But they are important as expressions of that will. They are important because they gain a hold on men's minds. They form, as it were, a bench mark on the structure of man's experience; become a part of his past, his traditions of life, and condition his thought of the future. Charters, even though they express no more than a hope, have a way of striking roots in the human heart. They are of the spirit as well as of parchment. No one will deny that the influence of Magna Carta-the Great Charter-has far exceeded its actual provision.
Finally, the editorial says:
Canada, which has as much freedom as any nation in the world, should not hesitate to proclaim its own faith by establishing it in law.
I have been asked what terms would be put into a bill of rights or into a declaration of freedom. I realize the difficulties of draftsmanship. Those who drafted the first ten amendments to the United States constitution took several years. Since that time we have had an example in the difficulty of the United Nations. Incidentally some three years ago a declaration of human freedoms was agreed on but as yet has not been brought before parliament. In the representations made to the committee in the other place, which committee was presided over with distinction by Senator Roebuck, some recommendations as to terms were made. I shall read a
Human Rights
draft declaration of rights which I believe represents, in general, most of the principles to be embodied in such a bill of rights.
I have used as a base the draft declaration from the Senate committee, and have altered, added to or deleted some of its terms. I suggest these as a basis upon which Canadians might consider the drafting of a Canadian bill of rights or declaration of rights:
Article 1
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.
Article 2
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to recognition throughout Canada as a person before the law.
Article 4
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Article 5
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 6
(1)	No person shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
(2)	Any person who is arrested or detained shall be promptly informed of the reasons for the arrest or detention and be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time or to release.
(3)	No one shall be denied the right to reasonable bail without just cause.
(4)	No tribunal, royal commission, board or state official shall have the right to compel anyone to give evidence who is denied counsel or other constitutional safeguards.
Article 7
Every person who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall have an effective remedy in the nature of habeas corpus by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. Habeas corpus shall not be abridged, suspended or abrogated except by parliament.
Article 8
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 9
Every person is entitled to all the rights and freedoms herein set forth without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 10
Any person whose rights or freedoms as herein set forth have been violated may apply for relief on notice of motion to the supreme or superior court of the province in which the violation occurred.
There are some who contend that if we set forth all the terms in a bill of rights we may thereby limit our freedoms because

Human Rights
we shall thereby be limiting our freedoms to those comprised therein. In its constitutional amendments, the United States added a provision to meet that possibility, and I suggest to that end the final section be as follows:
Article 11
The above articles shall not be deemed to abridge or exclude any rights or freedoms to which any person is otherwise entitled.
The foregoing are based on the findings of two joint committees on. fundamental freedoms and those of two house committees of the Senate. Would a bill of rights containing such terms be binding? Would it not entrench upon provincial rights under the British North America Act? That is a problem that deserves the most serious attention. I do not ask for a bill of rights passed by parliament which in any way would invade or infringe the rights of the provinces.
It is agreed that in order to bring in a bill of rights to include the rights of both national and provincial jurisdictions, it would be necessary to have an amendment to the constitution. There would be no need however for an amendment in the constitution for a declaration of rights which has been suggested by various newspapers across the country. Such a declaration would be a declaration of idealism, a blueprint, but setting forth and embodying that which Canada accepted when she became a signatory of the United Nations charter. However, in order to determine the question of constitutionality I drafted the bill of rights with a view to having the government of this country consider the advisability of submitting for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada the question as to the degree to which the fundamental freedoms of religion, of speech and of the press' and the preservation of the constitutional rights of the individual included in. the draft are matters of federal and provincial jurisdiction. No longer would the argument be raised that a national bill of rights would invade provincial jurisdiction and therefore should not be passed by parliament. A submission to the supreme court would decide. This resolution requests that the wishes of hundreds of thousands of Canadians for a bill of rights be given the opportunity of implementation by a submission to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine the degree to which such a declaration, would be within the competence of parliament or whether it is within the competence of the legislatures.
In 1936, the Prime Minister was counsel for the government in the submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Privy

Council with regard to the jurisdictional power of parliament to pass the new deal legislation which had been passed by parliament under the administration of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. That legislation affected monetary and economic matters and the government of the day did not feel itself opposed to submitting it to the courts. I ask that a matter that affects the spiritual things of life should be submitted in order to determine once and for all the question as to the degree to which parliament has the power to pass a bill of rights, and after a judgment has been rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada, either the matter would then finally come to its fruition, through agreement with the provinces in a constitutional amendment or, to the degree to which the parliament of Canada has the jurisdiction, a legal bill of rights could be passed by parliament. We now have in parliament the power to amend our constitution on federal matters without resort either to the consent of the provinces or to submission to the imperial parliament and a constitutional amendment could1 be passed if the court should decide that fundamental freedoms are within the competence of parliament.
Someone may ask what a bill of rights would do. A bill of rights would deny the right of any majority to interfere with my serving God as my conscience demands. It would deny the right of any government to interfere with my right to speak or write so long as I did so within the law. It would deny discrimination against any person because of his race or colour. Let no one contend that there is no discrimination, when I read that Rabbi Abraham Feinberg-on Saturday last, in advocating a federal bill of rights in Toronto-pointed out the dangers of discrimination.
Today we are in a world challenged by communism. Communism holds out to coloured races the promise of equality. Communism provides at once tyranny with the hope of equality and non-discrimination. If ever there was a time that the commonwealth, with five to one of those who are members of the commonwealth being of coloured races, should do everything possible to assure freedom from discrimination, it is in our generation when the hearts of men are being mobilized and when the war of ideas is being fought as between Christianity and everything it stands for on the one side and communism on the other.
A bill of rights would re-define the landmarks of liberty, which are almost erased as a result of the pathways of war becoming the permanent highroads of peace. It would give positive evidence that when

Canada, at the United Nations assembly two years ago, accepted the universal declaration of human rights, that acceptance was a dedication of the Canadian people not only internationally but nationally as well. It would make parliament more careful before passing laws that would have the effect of suspending or interfering with freedom. It would mobilize the spiritual things of life without which neither nations nor men can live a full and abundant life. Above everything else, it would make Canadians freedom conscious. As Canadians we pride ourselves on our Canadianism and how full, ample and free we are. Why is it that Canadians have not been given the equality with British subjects in the United Kingdom, in relation to actions against the crown in the courts of law? The time has come to raise the right of Canadian citizenship, and to place Canadians on equal footing with the queen in courts of law, with the right to take any proceeding against the crown without consent of the crown, other than proceedings in respect of the armed forces, or under the Post Office Act.
Next, I think the time has come to remove from statutes and orders in council the power to deny the right of appeal to the courts against orders affecting the individual.
The Prime Minister has gone a long way in recent years in tabling orders in council in parliament from month to month, a step most commendable and appreciated. There are, however, still powers in one of the ministers to pass orders which will be secret whenever, by his ipse dixit, secrecy of that order in council is demanded in his opinion. One cannot object if the power is used sparingly, carefully and judiciously, but there is no reason why any board, any deputy minister or a governor in council should be able to pass orders in council that deny access to the courts. For after all, when you have access to the courts you have standing behind you the assurance of justice which can otherwise be denied. One of the great United States justices, Mr. Justice Cardozo summed up the rule of law and the importance of recourse to the courts in these words:
The utility of an external (judicial) power restraining the legislative judgment is not to be measured by counting the occasions of its exercise. The great ideals of liberty and equality are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles, by enshrining them in constitutions, and consecrating to the task of their protection a body of defenders. By conscious or subconscious influence, the presence of this restraining power, aloof in the background, but nonetheless always in reserve, tends to stabilize and rationalize the legislative
Human Rights
judgment, to infuse it with the glow of principle, to hold the standard aloft and visible for those who must run the race and keep the faith.
Then, sir, Canadians, whose fundamental freedoms are interfered with, have no right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The supreme court is a court of final appeal, yet it does not possess the same powers as the privy council had which allowed one to go to the foot of the throne when fundamental freedoms were interfered with. I ask that the Supreme Court of Canada Act be amended so as to provide for appeals, not only when monetary considerations are at stake or when future rights are to be determined as now is the case; but as well there should be the right of Canadians to appeal against any interference with the citizen in the fundamental freedoms of religion, of the press, of association and of speech.
I suggest that a standing committee should be set up as a watchdog to watch encroachments on freedom and invasions of freedom anywhere in our dominion. We have standing committees of parliament on the library and on the restaurant and so forth. Surely it would not be amiss to have a standing committee to maintain the closest possible scrutiny of any invasions of personal freedom which invade the right of the individual to his traditional freedoms, or any interference with or abrogations of those elements that constitute our freedom.
What I have tried to do is to outline something of what a bill of rights could do, what its terms might be, and what the benefits that would flow from it would be to the Canadian people.
I believe, sir, that freedom needs an anchor, and that anchor is the power of the courts to protect the freedoms of the individual under law. I ask for a charter that will guarantee the rights of individuals and minorities. Some claim that elections have that result. Elections will never preserve the right of the minority that is too weak numerically to count for anything in the ballot box. Those are the people whose rights have to be protected; for if we grant the right of an all-powerful state to destroy the rights of the minority, however small, we are at the same time inviting the destruction of our rights when we, in the course of time, become a minority.
Majority rule too often has faltered and failed in maintaining freedom. I would be the first to admit that laws in themselves are not sufficient to preserve freedom, but laws have their place, and without laws freedom cannot be maintained.
Discrimination, the denial of the rights of minorities in any way in our country, exerts a vicious influence that, if not met effectively

Human Rights
and counteracted by parliament, will ultimately destroy that unity that every racial group in Canada desires. I believe that Canadians must unite in a national and personal dedication to obliterate anything in the nature of racial or religious prejudice. To do that requires not only personal dedication but law standing by to deal with those who fail to realize that the denial of the rights of minorities is the denial of freedom itself. I believe with all my heart that by maintaining the everlasting principles embodied in our fundamental freedoms can Canada achieve eternal understanding, mutual forbearance and unity, for it is as true of nations as it is of individuals, that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
I know what the cynics who regard themselves as realists will say. They have said it for a thousand years-that idealistic charters of freedom are meaningless. They maintain that a declaration of the abiding principles of freedom cannot be enforced. My answer to them is that that same cynical answer could have been given, that same argument could be made against the Sermon on the Mount, seen against the actual practices of Christendom; yet, to what depths would man have fallen had he not had that supreme declaration of spiritual ideas to support the age-long strivings of the individual to rise above sordid self-interest.
I make this appeal through you, sir, to the government: that a vote on this matter be a free vote. For after all this is merely a resolution expressing a principle. It will not bring in a bill of rights, but will enable steps to be taken. Freedom must always stand above any party consideration. More than
700,000	people have asked for something to be done, and through you, sir, I make an appeal for support of the resolution. I have endeavoured to speak without provocation, without raising issues that might separate us, with a sincere desire to make a contribution to national unity, the foundation of which is freedom and forbearance. I make an appeal to hon. members in all parts of the house to give support to this resolution, which will provide a step along the road to implementation and preservation of our freedom. For a journey, even of a thousand miles, starts with one step.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish first of all to thank the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) for the opportunity he has presented to us today to discuss this very important subject by way of a resolution. He has been unfaltering in his advocacy of a bill of rights; and today was his day to speak.

I confess that I would much rather listen to him speak on a subject so close to his heart than to hear my small voice; that is the reason I stayed my resolution the other day. We have been privileged today to hear a great human cause presented by a great people's advocate. I welcome and I share the general tenor of his views expressed today.
He commenced by a reference to 1945, and the meeting at San Francisco, when there was established the United Nations. I am going to carry on from 1948 when Canada, at the United Nations general assembly, voted in favour of a universal declaration of human rights. By doing that we endorsed the principle and we undertook to promote progressive steps and measures to bring that about in our own country.
The preamble to the declaration begins in this way:
That human rights should be protected by the rule of law.
In furtherance of this high ideal and objective, groups were formed, manifestos framed, editorials written and speeches made both in and outside the house ending with the familiar phrase: The government should do something about it.
These people who have petitioned the government have asked that a bill of rights be directed to the well-being of the individual -not to safeguard any particular group, but to serve as a shield for all. I am familiar with the two schools of thought which have been enjoying an academic field day on the bill of rights over these past few years. I was a member of the joint parliamentary committee which studied the question in 1947. I have previously contributed to the debates on the subject in the house. One side wants a bill of rights written into the constitution. The other side says we lack the constitutional authority and that, in the last analysis, civil rights are the result of an informed and intelligent public opinion, and that they cannot be fully guaranteed by putting them into a statute. If both sides are left to themselves they will probably be arguing for many, many more years to come.
A bill of rights for Canadians is not an academic subject for debating societies, but very real, very live and very much needed today. There is no fundamental law in Canada guaranteeing civil liberty. 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, in itself, is not enough. Let me quote from an editorial which

appeared in the Globe and Mail on May 15, 1951. I believe it indicates clearly what I have in mind:
Examples of the infringement of rights have been fairly numerous in Canada since the war. In various parts of the country legislatures, municipal councils, police forces and civil servants have offended. And the trouble is that the individual whose liberties have been denied cannot go to the court and point to any written Canadian law guaranteeing him redress. He can plead only the usage of the constitution and not all of our courts can be relied on to respect that authority. A national bill of rights would be something they could not avoid respecting and enforcing.
There are among us many minorities, racial, religious, economic and political. They know lull well that if discrimination can be practised against one group with impunity, then it can be directed against them. 1 do not believe that we can legislate tolerance in this country. Yet, defining the limits of civil liberties by law would not be an empty gesture.
There is a great need today for a formal restatement of the fundamental principles of individual freedom. The people of Canada want to know what their rights are, they are entitled to know that. As the hon. member for Lake Centre has pointed out, the objection raised is that the house is not competent to deal with a bill of rights. We have been told that it would not be constitutional. Without becoming involved in that particular question, let me say that it is not as simple as all that.
I quite agree that it would be difficult to say offhand just what the position is; but the constitutional difficulties are no reason for sloughing off the whole very important question now before the house. There is a simple method by which we can ascertain what is the constitutional position. If the Department of Justice is unable or unwilling -to give us an authoritative opinion that is .strong enough for us to proceed on, we can direct a reference to the Supreme Court of [DOT]Canada. We can determine our position with the least possible delay.
The hon. member for Lake Centre has indicated that on a previous occasion in respect of a very important matter, the then prime minister referred the matter of social legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada. Within our own memory, on a problem that I do not think is as important as a bill of rights, namely the matter of margarine, there was a reference to the Supreme Court of [DOT]Canada. It seems to me that a bill of rights would have priority at least equal to that of margarine.
Let me indicate for a moment some of the things I have in mind in a bill of rights. 'There are of course the racial discrimination
Human Rights
cases, which have been widely reported in the press. I do not relish repeating them for the record. As a matter of fact, I very much regret the incidents.
Even now, there are a great number of cases which do not come to the attention of the public, and are unknown except to the parties involved. It is beyond question that one of the fundamental freedoms in any bill of rights is the freedom from discrimination on grounds of race, colour or creed.
I came across a reference to a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at McGill university as reported in the Globe and Mail on November 10. That report indicated that he had said that-
-Canada had grown a great deal since 1867, but Canadians had not yet reached the stage where everyone in every part of the country confidently felt he had nothing to fear from the action of a possible majority. Every Canadian should strive to bring about confidence in minorities that their rights would be safeguarded.
And at another point:
The idea that political rights could be based on racial superiority was one that was intolerable to Canadians, he said. Among Canadians it is not ancestry which determines one's superiority but only individual worth.
Closely allied is the freedom of the individual to practise his religion according to his beliefs. There have been some persecutions. Any charter of civil rights which does not protect the most precious and personal of all freedoms would not be worth the paper it is written on. It is a basic freedom, and any attempt to cut it down or qualify it places in jeopardy the religious freedom of everyone.
In Canada we can have no preferential religions. In the eyes of the law before the bar of justice all religions are valid and deserve respect. This must be affirmed in our Canadian bill of rights. Such provisions will stand as a constant reminder to those who may be tempted to instil intolerance by their numerical or economic superiority. Canada is a land of minorities, religious as well as racial. We are not a one-religion state any more than we are a one-party state. The Protestant, the Catholic, the Jew, yes, the Jehovah's Witness practises his religion, not on sufferance, but as of right. That right must be preserved for him against all attacks and for all time.
Political freedom is equally important. Even now the padlock law, which is an abridgement of the right of assembly, is still part of the law of one of our provinces. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) made what I thought was an oblique reference to the situation that exists at this

Human Rights
France, and the note called for these provisions. I quote from the New York Times of March 23:
(1)	German national land, air and sea forces "essential for the defence of the country" and the "war materials and equipment" necessary to supply them.
(2)	Permission for all former nazis and wehr-macht officers, except those serving sentences for crimes, to re-enter German public life.
There you have it; a complete about-face. It need not surprise you, because the perverted minds in this country, and in other parts of the world, have now suddenly come to find that there is reason, logic and comfort in that new policy. They are advocating the new policy without any regard at all to what they did yesterday. You will find most of the communists and their fellow travellers in this country openly playing with the Germans. Even at this late date, they are preparing a halo for these Germans and trying to fit it to size.
These same communists who suppress civil liberties when they are in power do their most braying about civil liberties when they are out of power. While we are committed to a serious course of action in Korea whose conclusions cannot yet be known, we only know that the future will require all the strength that we can muster, spiritually, morally, physically, economically and militarily. Anything that weakens that strength is working against our best interest, and is doing a disservice to this country. I am suggesting even at this late date to those people, whatever their motives may be, to look about them in the world and to look into their own hearts. To deceive themselves may cause no great harm, but they cannot be permitted to deceive the rest of us. I think those who are inclined to the other persuasion had better reconsider their choice. I do not think the Canadian people understand how they justify serving the communist party, rather than the great aspirations of the Canadian people. Greater freedom, greater economic and social justice are not the goals of the communist party.
To be a dupe or a stooge may satisfy some maladjusted souls, but to serve indirectly the interests of another country is a very serious matter. I advise them to re-examine themselves very quickly. I am not preaching McCarthyism or guilt by association. I deplore that, as everyone in the house and the country knows. I am not speaking of crushing fundamental rights which I shall defend in the future as I have in the past, and which I am advocating for all people. I am speaking of citizenship and loyalty, on which there can be no division of opinion. I am not going to waste my time advising

communists. They do not listen to me. I have some hope that misguided fellow travellers will cut themselves loose, because I warn them that they are playing with fire.
What I want in a bill of rights is freedom within the law depending on two basic principles. First, that the individual may do and say what he believes, so long as he does not transgress the substantive law of the land. Second, that public authorities may only do those things which are authorized by common law or statute. It is within this framework that our Canadian bill of rights can be constructed.
I close by quoting three authorities. First, I should like to quote Professor A. ft. M. Lower, noted historian. This statement appears in a brief presented to the Prime Minister last year on behalf of a committee urging a bill of rights.
What Canada needs at the moment is to forge some kind of public restatement, something which will summarize her vital traditions, that is to say, the tradition of freedom, and place it, as it were, within the reach of the ordinary plain man.
Then I quote, as did the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), Rabbi Abraham L. Feinberg, whose statement appears in the Globe and Mail of March 22:
"The principle of human rights must be accorded the dignity and permanence of constitutional documentation", Rabbi Feinberg declared, "to encourage the weak in the pursuit of justice, to serve as a final ground of moral appeal, to restrain temporal and temporary governments from oppressive measures.
"The western nations in their struggle with communism have reached a crisis that demands the utmost moral measures," he said. "Our democracy, which we are ready to defend with arms, must first be defined-as a sure, uncompromising bulwark of the common people, without distinction of race, creed, or colour."
I close by quoting the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who, speaking at McGill university on November 9 last year, said:
We must each and every one of us strive, by our own conduct and by the use of our own influence with others, to create a situation and a state of mind where all Canadians in every province will believe that all their cherished rights are completely safe against the encroachment of any possible majority of their fellow citizens.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the house has heard two most interesting speeches on the subject of a bill of rights. I am quite sure that the house will agree with me when I say that although the bar may have gained two distinguished adherents, the religious communities of both gentlemen have lost two great teachers. They have been speaking today on the great tradition of parliament and the subject matter is one which we all welcome for discussion.

I have for many years been concerned with the need for a bill of rights. Indeed, I remember that in 1945, when I first came to this parliament, I placed upon the order paper a resolution which was taken from the policy of the group I represent here. This was the wording of it:
That, in the opinion of this house, there should be incorporated in the constitution a bill of rights protecting minority rights, civil and religious liberties, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly; establishing equal treatment before the law for all citizens, irrespective of race, nationality or religious or political beliefs; and providing the necessary democratic powers to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms.
I agreed with that then as I agree with it now. I happened to be looking over some of the past debates concerned with civil rights which have taken place in this house, as some other hon. members may have done; and I hope none of them will be deterred unduly by some of the things which have been said. I remember that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell)-who on occasion can be quite a fire-eater-in 1948 said, as reported at page 2872 of Hansard:
I am as convinced as I ever could be that traitors to our way of life are behind this clamour for a bill of rights to protect our fundamental freedoms.
I then turned to page 2874, and find that the hon. member for Macleod continued:
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.
The hon. gentleman's language was at least far-fetched and one could easily say reckless. For anybody to say or to think for a moment that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is a traitor, that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) is a dupe or that I am either one or the other, is something that is too absurd to comment upon. Nevertheless that unhappily is the sort of answer which is given in the name of argument. Expletive is confused with argument by members who disagree with those of us who believe that a bill of rights is necessary. I hope today that they will not resort to this type of answer but rather will try to present to the house a reasoned argument against what we believe to be the reasoned arguments which are being presented.
There is, of course-and the statement of the hon. member for Macleod is a case in point-a tremendous pressure for conformity. As somebody has already said in this debate, nothing would be more devastating to democracy than uniform conformity. Even the briefest knowledge of history will show that in many cases it has been the non-conformists who have been responsible for progress; and
Human Rights
therefore it is the non-conformists amongst others who need the protection of a bill of rights.
The hon. member for Lake Centre dealt with the question of freedom of the press. Indeed, he quoted from a brief of the Canadian Daily Newspapers Association; and it was a very good brief, may I say. We in this group believe that freedom of the press should be protected, even although at times it seems to us it is freedom to print only that which the press wishes to see printed. I know that the daily press and the weekly press of this country do not always act in a responsible manner. There are many examples that I could give ranging from the Montreal Gazette right down to Hush and from Hush down to the Winnipeg Free Press.
One of the things which must alarm anyone who considers the state of the press in North America is the fact that competition is decreasing. Newspapers are either going bankrupt or are being bought out by those who were competitors. What we hear in the land more and more is the voice of only one group. I am told: "That problem can easily be solved by those who dislike the trend of the daily newspapers just now; they can always start another newspaper." In point of theory, that may be quite a good argument; but from the point of view of practice it is utterly impracticable because I doubt if one could start a daily newspaper today with a capitalization of even one million pounds. It can therefore be seen that starting a daily newspaper is a hobby in which only the extremely rich can afford to indulge. Not unnaturally those who control the press of the country insist that their views of events are the ones which shall be heard, always, of course, with a polite bow to the column which contains letters to the editor.
I have said that the press does not always act in a responsible manner, and I wish to document that statement with just one example. Hon. members will recall that in 1949, during the time of the general election, the Conservative party then was quite concerned about North Star aircraft, and it was going about the country breathing all sorts of things about those aircraft and about the company which made them. After the election-to be explicit, on August 2, 1949- Saturday Night, which professes to be one of the great weeklies in Canada, published on "The Front Page", the following few paragraphs:
It is by now, we think, generally admitted even by Conservatives that the attack against the North Star aircraft and Canadair Ltd. was not a justified and legitimate piece of political campaigning. One of the unfortunate characteristics of a campaign of this character during a pre-election period is that anybody who argues on the other side is at

Human Rights
once put down as a supporter of the party against which the campaign' is directed. Saturday Night had grave suspicions of the validity of the charges at the time when they were being so noisily exploited, as did, we think, a good many other politically independent periodicals. But to have expressed a strong opinion concerning them prior to the election would have exposed us to the charge of being opposed to the Conservative party . . .
Thus Saturday Night prefers error to continue. I have never seen such an extraordinary case of editorial pusillanimity, to put it mildly, in the history of Canadian journalism. Indeed, I think "pusillanimity" is the wrong word; editorial cowardice is what I should have said. Only too often newspapers which profess to revere the traditions of a free press are prepared to prostitute them whenever their interests are at stake. We want to see a free press but we do not want to see an irresponsible press. I would remind the house of what Robert M. Hutchins, who was president of the University of Chicago, said in a broadcast over the B.B.C. He-
. . . declared that the American Investigating commission had found United States newspapers, radio, movies and magazines largely dominated by irresponsible concentrations of private power.
That is a condition which we must safeguard ourselves against in this country just as we must safeguard freedom of the press. We respect this principle of freedom of the press, but we would be much happier if the press at times would respect the responsibility it ought to have to the people of Canada.
The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) mentioned a matter which is creating disturbance in another dominion. I refer to the Union of South Africa. He said what is happening there might be regarded as a domestic affair. I disagree with him. I do not think it is a domestic affair at all when in a country practices are carried on which vitally affect the whole free and democratic world. It is not a domestic affair when the premier of South Africa is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of democracy the world over. I therefore think it is right to do as the hon. member did, and as I intend to do, namely to speak out against this dreadful and shocking policy of apartheid. Surely one would have hoped-let me say it this way-that we might have become sufficiently civilized by now to realize that a man who has a different colour of skin is not necessarily a being inferior to ourselves. And yet that is the policy on which Dr. Malan seems to be operating. A million half-caste people in the Cape territory have been refused the right to vote merely because their skins are coloured, and that is going to be used against the democratic world all across Asia as another example of the hypocritical tactics

of the western world, and therefore we have to condemn it. It was condemned in another way in a statement issued by UNESCO some time ago on race prejudice by geneticists, biologists and others and this is what they say in part:
Wherever it has been possible to make allowances for differences in environmental opportunities, the tests have shown essential similarity in mental characters among all human groups. In short, given similar degrees of cultural opportunity to realize their potentialities, the average achievement of the members of each ethnic group is about the same.
There can be no excuse at all, for people who believe themselves to be civilized, to indulge in discrimination against any one group because of their colour. And yet there is one thing which I must draw to the attention of the house, to the attention of the government, and to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris). There are British subjects whose skins are coloured, who are not permitted to come to this country to live, and the reason is the department believes that the climatic conditions in Canada are such that they would not be able to make a go of it in this country. As a matter of fact there was an order in council to that effect, order in council No. 2856. I am sure there are members other than myself who have known the experience of citizens from the British West Indies coming to this country and then being deported because they were unacceptable owing to the colour of their skins, and not for any moral, social or other reason.
We are not above criticism ourselves, and if we have to criticize others at times then we must be as far as possible in the position of Caesar's wife-above suspicion. Experience has shown that these young men who have come to Canada have, in the past, fitted well into the Canadian scene. History has shown that when they joined the armed forces of Canada they fought as gallantly as did any others in the army; but it is a policy of discrimination which has to be corrected.
There may be valid reasons for excluding people from this country, but the colour of a man's skin can no longer be accepted as valid. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) commented upon the fact that the communists had suddenly once again become enamoured of nazis and were quite prepared to see the nazis restored to power in Germany. I am not surprised, as indeed no one who knows communist tactics would be. I received on my desk this morning a statement demanding a bill of rights from a group which may or may not be a communist front. I do not know. There is no name on the document, but I have my own suspicions.

Yet I cannot forget that the communists who today are asking most loudly for a bill of rights are the very same people who in 1945 out-liberaled the Liberals in insisting that the Japanese be shifted a hundred miles from the coast of British Columbia and kept away in perpetuity. When a communist speaks about a bill of rights I think it is pardonable if we regard what he says with some derision.
There is another aspect of a bill of rights which has not yet been touched on, namely, the economic and social side of it. The late President Roosevelt said in 1944:
True freedom has no meaning unless man has independence and economic security.
If one examines the premise for that statement, one is forced to the conclusion that there is not very much true freedom in the world. Mr. Mackenzie King said in Toronto some years ago:
An era of freedom is achieved only as social security and human welfare become the main concern of men and nations.
It may be said: Well, we are slowly getting to that point. But I admit, Mr. Speaker, I am impatient in that regard; I should like to see us getting there much faster. We in this group say a bill of rights should include also a bill of social rights, for democracy implies economic and social rights as well as political rights. Amongst those social rights are these: For men the conditions of work shall be such that each shall have security and be assured of his personal dignity in the job he undertakes. We believe that men have the right to retire from work at 65, with a pension adequate to keep them in that dignity which we associate with the individual and which we talk about so much. We believe that men have the right to an adequate indemnity in the event of unemployment. The time is going to come, perhaps not in our day, when we will realize that when a man is unemployed through no fault of his own he should not be penalized for that but, rather, should be assisted as rapidly as possible to new employment, and that while he is without work his income should not suffer.
We believe of course, as do others, in the right of the individual to membership in associations of his own choice. We believe in the right of the individual to social security against sickness and against the ills of life. That is not the situation just now. I remember hearing of a case in Winnipeg, where a friend of mine who was over 60, with the aid of his wife, had saved over the years two or three thousand dollars. Unhappily she was stricken with a disease which was fatal. During the course of her illness all the savings were used and this man's wife died. Now he is approaching 65 with no
Human Rights
savings and little security whatsoever. If there is dignity in humanity, and we say there is, then we have got to do something to avert such situations.
Another right is the right of the individual to own his individual property. Another right we would like to see stressed is that of equality between the sexes. Perhaps I will be accused of speaking as a mere man, but I must say that when I try to insist, with certain members of the distaff side, that they exercise their rights, they have been very loath to do so. Indeed we do believe as a principle that there should be equality between the sexes.
Another right which has been touched on by both the previous speakers is the right of a man to employment regardless of his race, his colour or his creed. I am sure that many of us come across cases where Canadian citizens have been denied work because of their ethnic extraction or because perhaps of their religious beliefs. That is a shocking thing in a democracy. It is true that racial discrimination is never so noticeable in times of full employment, when economic conditions are good. Then, to the average person the man next door is a neighbour, no matter what his religious belief may be or his ethnic origin. But this is a fact. When the threat of unemployment begins to pervade men's minds, then the one who is the neighbour becomes one who may perhaps take from them their right to work, and that is the time when racial and religious differences begin to show up.
It may be said that we cannot uproot this sort of prejudice, but at least we can try to protect those victimized. It may be said that we need education to get rid of racial prejudice. That is true. But remember that through the Christian churches we have been educating people for 2,000 years into a concept of brotherhood amongst men, and it has not yet come about. We need something more than education; we need legislation to stop overt acts of racial prejudice.
I find so often the terms we use are confusing. For instance, the hon. member for Lake Centre used the term "civil rights". I used the term "civil rights" too. We both used them with a certain connotation, but they are immediately picked up by those who insist on the actual words of the British North America Act, where civil rights are engrossed. I imagine that what we really mean-I stand subject to correction-is constitutional rights. I insist that it is the constitutional right of a Canadian to have a job, regardless of his ethnic origin, or of his religious' beliefs. Many of us have seen the effects of racial

Human Rights
discrimination upon our citizens in this country. It may at the best make them bitter; at the worst it makes them bad citizens, but in almost every case the effect of racial discrimination is little short of tragic, and indeed is so serious that I would regard it as a criminal offence. Therefore I think the way to combat it would be by an amendment to the Criminal Code. Here I should like to quote what Professor F. R. Scott said in the Canadian Bar Review in May, 1949:
Where the criminal law power is but little used today, and where it might be better used for the protection of freedoms, is in regard to the creation of new crimes against freedom itself. It is a crime to disturb a religious ceremony, but it is not a crime, or at least as precisely defined a crime, to disturb a public meeting or to prevent the distribution of literature. It is a crime for employers to discharge for trade union activities, but it is not a crime for them to use labour spies. It is a crime to libel an individual but not a crime to libel a group or race. It is a crime to hit any man over the head with a stick but it is not a crime to refuse to serve him a meal in a public restaurant or to refuse him a room in a hotel because of his race or religion. It is a crime for any public official, whether federal or provincial, to take a bribe, but not a crime for him to discriminate against races or creeds in granting licences or franchises. It would be wrong to imagine that freedom can be created merely by adding new crimes to the Criminal Code, but this is not to say that certain practices which violate human rights ought not to be made criminal where now they give rise only to a personal action in damages if there be an action at all. The law can buttress moral principles, and make the path of the wicked more difficult.
Therefore we would like to see in a bill of rights either some provision to outlaw discrimination against Canadian citizens or, if that cannot be achieved, an amendment to the criminal law. Then again it can be argued: What use is an amendment to the law? It can be repealed. The answer is that it can be-but so can Magna Carta, so can habeas corpus, so can the bill of rights. All of these great measures in human history can be repealed, but their presence on the statute books has proved of great value to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom and, to some extent, Canada.
One of our great tasks, I feel, is to protect the rights of minorities in search of work. One of our great tasks is to get rid of these stupid superstitions that a man is necessarily fundamentally different or inferior because he worships God in another way, because his skin is another colour, or because his race is something entirely different from ours.
Here I would like to quote an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal, and which referred to an article from UNESCO:
Biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood; for man is born with drives toward co-operation, and unless these drives are satisfied, man and nations alike fall ill. Man is bom a social being who can reach his fullest

development only through interaction with his fellows. The denial at any point of this social bond between man and man brings with it disintegration. In this sense, every man is his brother's keeper. For every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main, because he is involved in mankind.
When we have accepted these things we may not need a bill of rights; but until then we most certainly do.


Mr. A. Phileas Cole (Malapedia-Malane):: Mr. Speaker, without any desire to copyright this well-known truth, I shall venture to state at the outset of my remarks that Canada, like all other nations of the world, is undergoing quite a transition.
As it is for humanity to choose between a paradise in this world or annihilation, so it is for Canada to choose between two ideologies -totalitarianism or streamlined democracy. And I voluntarily use the word streamlined, because it is for Canada, as it is for many other countries in this new atomic era, either evolution or revolution. Indeed, if there ever was a time in the history of mankind which called for reorientation, it surely is ours; and this applies both on the international and on the national fronts.
In this respect may I venture to say that in the realm of international relations the famous "what we have we hold" or the concept of imperialism is not an up-to-date enunciation of realities; no more than the obsolete policy of balance of power or sphere of influence.
This radical change is of course the product of a war in two volumes, during the last 35 years; but it is also the result of an inventory which took stock of the obligations and the rights in store in totalitarian and democratic states-with the consequence that the people fond of democratic principles are trying hard to give democracy a greater meaning for mankind.
Of course one of the first endeavours in this direction surely was the assurance given during the war to all peoples, that the democratic states would see to it that the four freedoms would not be a mere enunciation of principles, and that everywhere in the democratic world freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear and freedom from want would actually become the order of the day.
That is why the various conferences conducive to the organization of the United Nations agreed at least on certain fundamentals which became incorporated afterwards in the charter of the United Nations.
We surely cannot repeat too often the clauses of this charter. As a matter of fact this charter should be given to school children and to night school pupils to memorize,

because the first condition for the implementation of this charter is the cognition of what it embodies.
Thus:
We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has "brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and for these ends to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours; and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security; and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest; and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.
And Canada signed.
Now you will tell me: Is it not enough and why a bill of rights for Canada?
Surely it would be enough if it did not need to be more articulated in our midst. But something remains to be done to give Canadians all enjoyment of human rights. And irrespective of the number of freedoms the United Nations human rights commission decided to formulate, these freedoms will be useless if the people of the world in general and the people of Canada in particular are not cognizant of the fact that they, and they themselves alone, have the responsibility, through of course a democratic process- otherwise it would be a revolution-to see that every single freedom of theirs is assured to them. The best demonstration that all peoples' freedoms are well safeguarded is in the exercise of them all. And nobody else but the body politic of a country can assure that exercise of freedom.
And in this respect the body politic of a democracy has surely in the competition of ideologies an advantage that I would consider it stupid not to use. For instance what system but a democratic one can offer freedom from wrongful interference; freedom of press; freedom of radio; freedom of motion pictures; freedom of publications; freedom of speech, et cetera, et cetera-in a word, freedom of all media of information.
And all these freedoms cannot be reasserted and reassured and dedicated in a clearer and a more lasting form than in a charter which becomes part of the law of the land. Once a law, and only then, a right is protected against aggression and the culprit is liable to punishment.
Human Rights
Therefore whoever will infringe other rights shall be chastized as he deserves to be. Therefore whoever will try to discriminate against his brother-for, as St. Paul once said, "we are all sons of a universal God"-will not reap the harvest of his misdemeanour, but shall pay the price of the damage.
Now, having in view the aims of the democratic world on the one hand and on the other the obligations of a democratic state to promote freedoms dear to the human heart, acceptable to human dignity, sought by human intelligence and desired by human will power, do you not think it is advisable to chart Canadians' rights?
Not that we ask for more here in this country than is being elsewhere asked for. No, surely not. But it is about time that we should become conscious of certain realities about ourselves first and second that we do something about it. And I am afraid that if those having responsibilities do not see the sign on the wall, they will later find themselves impotent to cope with the situation when they hear voices.
I am afraid that old conformism is defunct.
I am afraid the old peacetime policy is gone with the wind.
And I am afraid if rights of Canadians are not once and for all well established, safeguarded, exercised, that sporadic emigration and purge will not altogether solve the problem of building Canada into a first-class democratic state.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity of supporting what I regard as a most important resolution introduced by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). This resolution asks that the house and the government consider the introduction of a bill of rights which would become part of the constitution of this country to guarantee rights which until recent times we took for granted under the common law. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member in the resolution that the matter should be referred to the supreme court for a decision as to what rights lie between the provinces and the dominion is a good one. I hope that that suggestion will be taken under advisement and carried into effect immediately so that we may have the basis of a comprehensive bill of rights.
I said a moment ago that many of us, taking these rights for granted, were concerned largely with the gaining of more economic rights to complete the political rights which we already thought we had. We thought that in Canada rights and liberties

Human Rights
like those we have been discussing this afternoon were unassailable, but in the last fifteen or twenty years we have seen attempts made by legislatures to curtail some basic rights of freedom. While this parliament and this government undoubtedly have the right to disallow, for example, legislation which infringed certain constitutional rights of citizenship, the government did not always disallow acts which set them aside. As an example I would refer to the padlock law in the province of Quebec which the government did not disallow. Then we had the press act of Alberta in 1937 which was disallowed. Both of these were infringements of the civil rights of individuals and they both should have been treated in the same manner.
While it may be argued that the end justifies the means, many of us in this house and throughout the country, abhorring communism and denouncing espionage, nonetheless were gravely disturbed by the manner in which the government undertook an investigation several years ago. Persons were picked up, held incommunicado and were not given legal warnings or opportunities of obtaining legal advice. Indeed, the whole thing was a departure from our usual procedures under the law. Habeas corpus was abrogated under those circumstances because there was no opportunity for any representative appearing before a court and as the first order of business in that court asking for the production of the body of an individual who was held incommunicado.
I take it that the resolution moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre clearly has in mind the prevention of any recurrence of that kind of thing, any departure from the established legal safeguards. Indeed in the cases I have just mentioned the legal safeguards both for Canada and the accused were there and we could have proceeded, prosecuted, found guilty and sentenced under the law.
These were of course rather glaring examples and they affected numerous people. However, I want to say that in our country today other civil rights are being denied quite frequently to individuals and we hear very little about the infringements. For example, we have the occasional denying of accommodation in hotels to individuals because of their race or colour. Ostensibly they are told that the hotel is full, that there is no accommodation. I know of one particular case where a coloured lady, an opera singer, visited one of our western cities,

presented herself at the hotel where a reservation was said to have been made, and was told that the hotel was full. To the credit of the lieutenant governor of that province, and I think perhaps I should name him-the late Mr. Archie McNab, former lieutenant governor of Saskatchewan-he invited this lady into his home where she spent a most pleasant week end with him and his wife.
We have so-called clubs which are really resorts, like the Seigniory club not many miles away from here where no accommodation can be obtained by anyone of the Jewish race or religion.
In the city of Toronto there is the lawyers' club in which no Jewish application is accepted. That is all the more surprising because after all, as the hon. member for Lake Centre has indicated over and over again, one of the safeguards of our democracy must come from those who practise the law. They at least should exercise no discrimination in any way.
Then there are summer resorts with restricted areas where people of certain races, colours or religions cannot find a place in which to spend a pleasant summer holiday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gentlemen's agreements.


Major James William Coldwell: In more recent days we have heard of persons who have lost their jobs or positions for security reasons, as they were told. I want to say immediately that any person who may abet sabotage, any person who may foment disloyalty to our country, should not have the right to work in a factory where secret operations are under way. But having said that, I hold that when a man is accused of being a poor security risk, and is about to lose his job he should be given the opportunity of appealing to some independent group or board. We did that during the war. Our experience with the defence of Canada regulations after a year or so compelled us to set up a board of review. That board of review acted with discretion and gave the protection to which every Canadian is entitled. In other parts of the British commonwealth there are such boards of review and I am advised that they have been working well. I know it will be said that there is a risk involved, but after all we should endeavour under all circumstances to maintain the right of the individual to be heard when he is accused, and under no circumstances condemn him by mere hearsay or association.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Major James William Coldwell: Just before the dinner recess, Mr. Speaker, I was remarking that I thought those who were being refused jobs on account of security should be given an opportunity to make an appeal to some governmental board or authority in order that they might make representation, and if unjustly accused might have an opportunity of clearing themselves. I think that is very important, because while we must do everything we can to guard against sabotage, to guard against the undermining of our institutions and espionage, nevertheless I think we have to be careful that there is no infringement of the democratic rights of Canadian citizens. When we see what has been going on in the United States in respect to some of these matters, I think Canadians are most anxious that we shall not follow the example set there and pillory persons simply because they are suspected of having, through their friends or by themselves, associations which are not popular in their country.
I say we must set our faces against anything of that kind, and legislate against it, because while in the last war we defeated one threat of repression which was extending over a large part of the world, we must be careful that we do not allow, in our own countries and under our own institutions, anything of that sort to occur. As I said at the outset, our freedom is incomplete, and will be incomplete until we get a wider measure of economic freedom. We should be careful to guard the freedom that we have. We believe that we should provide, as constitutional and inalienable, political and social rights, particularly the right of appeal under the law against any accusation that may be brought against an individual.
Last July in Frankfurt-on-Main there was a meeting of people who were of like mind in regard to the defence of freedom all across the world. The democratic socialists of some thirty-five countries adopted a set of principles regarding political freedom that are well worth putting on the record here tonight. They are as follows:
(a)	The right of every human being to a private life protected from arbitrary invasion by the state;
(b)	Political liberties like freedom of thought, expression, education, organization and religion;
(c)	The representation of the people through free elections under universal, equal and secret franchise;
(d)	Government by the majority and respect for the rights of the minority;
(e)	Equality before the law of all citizens whatever their sex, language, creed and colour;
(f)	Right to cultural autonomy for groups with their own languages and cultures;
Human Rights
(g)	An independent judiciary system; every man must have the right to a public trial before an impartial tribunal by due process of law.
Such aims, of course, differentiate the democrat of every type from the nazi, the fascist or the communist. When the communists or fascists attain power, they deny the fundamental, political and social rights of man. Wherever these organizations appear and threaten our democratic institutions, I believe they must be opposed with all the energy that we possess. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) when he spoke this afternoon about what is going on in South Africa. On occasion, I have been disappointed with our own delegation at the United Nations. When the matter of the South African racial discrimination has come before the United Nations, I have been disappointed that Canada has not taken a stronger position than she has taken. I know that there was a feeling that if we took a strong stand we perhaps might jeopardize the association of South Africa with the commonwealth. But I do not believe that that would have been the case. I believe quite the contrary, that had the commonwealth countries made their position clear a year or two ago, Malan might have had much greater difficulty in carrying out his apartheid policy which he has been putting into effect. It is incongruous that, within this British commonwealth, the denial of human freedom should go to the exterit it has gone in a sister commonwealth country.
I believe that this country should make it very plain that we do not intend to remain silent when such discrimination is practised. After all, as the hon. member for Spadina said this iafternoon, one of the greatest services that can be rendered to the world is the preservation of the association of India, Pakistan and Ceylon within the commonwealth of nations. I think ift is one of the greatest services-


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


George Matheson Murray: I should like to ask who controls the diamond mines and the gold reserves in South Africa?


Major James William Coldwell: Who controls the gold mines?


George Matheson Murray: The gold mines and the diamond mines of the Transvaal?


Major James William Coldwell: For the diamond mines, it is mainly the DeBeers Company.


George Matheson Murray: They are not Canadians.

Human Rights


Major James William Coldwell: I do not suggest they are Canadians. I do not know of any Canadians who control the diamond or gold mines within the confines of the Union of South Africa. There is a prominent Canadian who has run across a valuable deposit of diamonds, hut it is not in the Union of South Africa. I am discussing the commonwealth relationship with India, Pakistan and Ceylon, and how valuable they are to the commonwealth and to the world. This relationship Should not be jeopardized by the other commonwealth countries remaining silent in the face of what is happening in South Africa. Of course, there are other matters of discrimination. "We should condemn the expulsion of religious missionaries, by whatever countries they are expelled. We should stand against religious persecution, wherever that is practised in the world. We should condemn official pronouncements against religions of various types, because if we mean anything when we speak of civil liberty, certainly the liberty of religion is involved.
I am, therefore, happy that the province of Saskatchewan has placed upon its statute books the most comprehensive civil rights bill, certainly in Canada and I believe in North America. I am going to put on the record the provisions of that bill, though they are a little longer than those I usually quote. The act was passed in 1947, and is entitled, "An act to protect certain civil rights." It reads as follows:
1.	This act may be cited as The Saskatchewan Bill of Rights Act, 1947.
2.	In this act the expression "creed" means religious creed.
3.	Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to freedom of conscience, opinion and belief, and freedom of religious association, teaching, practice and worship.
4.	Every person and every class of persons shall, under the law, enjoy the right to freedom of expression through all means of communication, including speech, the press, radio and the arts.
5.	Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to peaceable assembly with others and to form with others associations of any character under the law.
6.	Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, and every person who is arrested or detained shall enjoy the right to an immediate judicial determination of the legality of his detention and to notice of the charges on which he is detained.
7.	Every qualified voter resident in Saskatchewan shall enjoy the right to exercise freely his franchise in all elections and shall possess the right to require that no legislative assembly shall continue for a period in excess of five years.
8.	(1) Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to obtain and retain employment without discrimination with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of

employment because of the race, creed, religion, colour or ethnic or national origin of such person or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall deprive a religious institution or any school or board of trustees thereof of the right to employ persons of any particular creed or religion where religious instruction forms or can form the whole or part of the instruction or training provided by such institution, or by such school or board of trustees pursuant to the provisions of The School Act, and nothing in subsection (1) shall apply with respect to domestic service or employment involving a personal relationship.
9.	Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to engage in and carry on any occupation, business or enterprise under the law without discrimination because of the race, creed, religion, colour or ethnic or national origin of such person or class of persons.
10.	Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to acquire by purchase, to own in fee simple or otherwise, to lease, rent and to-occupy any lands, messuages, tenements or hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, of every nature and description, and every estate or interest therein, whether legal or equitable, without discrimination because of the race, creed, religion, colour or ethnic or national origin of such persons or class of persons.
11.	Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to obtain the accommodation or facilities of any standard or other hotel, victualling house, theatre or other place to which the public is customarily admitted, regardless of the race, creed, religion, colour or ethnic or national origin of such persons or class of persons.
12.	Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to membership in and all of the benefits appertaining to membership in every professional society, trade union or other occupational organization without discrimination because of the race, creed, religion, colour or ethnic or national origin of such person or class of persons.
13. (1) Every person and every class of persons; shall enjoy the right to education in any school, college, university or other institution or place of learning, vocational training or apprenticeship-without discrimination because of the race, creed,, religion, colour or ethnic or national origin of such, person or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall prevent a school, college, university or other institution or place of learning which enrolls persons of a particular creed or religion exclusively, or which is-, conducted by a religious order or society, froim continuing its policy with respect to such enrolment.
Then there is just one more:
14.	(1) No person shall publish, display or cause-or permit to be published or displayed on any lands; or premises or in any newspaper, through any radio broadcasting station, or by means of any other-medium which he owns, controls, distributes or sells, any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other-representation tending or likely to tend to deprive,, abridge or otherwise restrict, because of the race, creed, religion, colour or ethnic or national origin. of any person or class of persons the enjoyment by any such person or class of persons of any right, to which he or it is entitled under the law.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as restricting the right to freedom of speech under the law, upon any subject.
Then follow certain penalty clauses. That, is a fairly comprehensive bill of rights; and those of us who know the history of western^

Canada and of the document will realize why some of the provisions were included in the act.
Hence it is that we should like to see on the statute books of the parliament of Canada a bill, perhaps not in these terms but within the federal jurisdiction, guaranteeing basic civil rights as fundamentals of our Canadian citizenship.
This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) put on the record a resolution representing the views of our organization and passed at a recent convention. I have here a similar motion. We have been passing these resolutions every two years ever since the C.C.F. came into being. I hope that we are now on the way to getting something really done by the federal parliament in this field. The statutory rights in the Saskatchewan act to which I have referred indicate our belief in the sanctity of the human personality. That is why we protest so strongly against discriminatory practices within our commonwealth such as those that have been outlined in legislation of the Union of South Africa; and of course one could name other countries and other nations outside the commonwealth that are doing or have done the same kind of thing.
We must not forget the fact that the freedoms we now have were won after a costly and prolonged struggle by our forefathers and that we have a rich inheritance in Magna Carta, in habeas corpus and other safeguards that either by law or by custom have been handed down to us from bygone days. We want to see those carefully preserved, particularly in this generation when human freedom in so many parts of the world is threatened or has been threatened in recent times.
It may be said, of course, that we have equality before the law; but I should say that at times, even in our own land, equality before the law has been denied because of the circumstances of the litigant. May I just say this. I believe that, until we remove the financial burden which litigants have to assume, there can be no equality. Indeed, we have welcomed the provision of defending counsel by public authority in various trials, but that provision does not entirely meet the situation. It is a good step forward; but until litigation is less costly and until litigants have access to the courts without running the risk of enormous fees which often prevent them from seeking their rights in the courts, we shall not have obtained the fullest civil right to which citizens are entitled. The stand that has been taken this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), the hon.
Human Rights
member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote) and by myself tonight is thoroughly in line with the principles that most of us profess, namely the principles of biblical teaching.
I have before me the report of the 1948 Lambeth conference of the bishops of the world-wide Anglican communion. I prefer to refer to that report because I happen to be a member of the religious denomination whose many bishops including those of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, and others from all over the world, made this important pronouncement. I should like to put this on record because I think it contains several thoughts that are most interesting and telling, coming as it does from one of the great Christian denominations, with world-wide influences and associations. These are what the Anglican church describes as the essential human rights which should be generally accepted. The first one they give is this:
1.	The right of the individual to personal security.
Then they go on to explain what this means:
This includes freedom from arbitrary arrest or
imprisonment, from torture and from slavery. It is essential to insist on these rights, especially as against the police state.
May I say that torture may be not only physical but mental; and I have thought that some of the individuals appearing before some of the Senate committees in the United States have been tortured mentally if not physically; indeed sometimes mental torture can be worse than physical torture.
The report continues:
2.	The right to life is not sufficient; man must be given the right to use his gifts or capacities in useful service. It is therefore necessary to secure for him various social and economic rights; among these are the right to work, to marry, to bring up a family and to possess personal property.
3.	Next there are the rights of freedom of speech, discussion and association. This group includes freedom of the press and on information from different points of view. It is important that the organs of publicity should be free and that the people should have access to reliable information, for they cannot reach a right judgment on current problems if they are left in ignorance by a rigorous censorship of unscrupulous propaganda.
4.	Fourthly there is the right of man to religious freedom. This is of utmost importance, for man has no true freedom unless he has freedom to worship and serve God according to the dictates of his conscience. Religious freedom means far more than freedom to worship and teach within a church building. It means also the right to propagate a religion and for an individual to change his religion without incurring political, social, or economic disabilities. In the case of children the family, not the state, should ultimately decide what religion the child is taught. The Christian church must be quite uncompromising in its demands for full religious freedom both for Christians and for those of other religions. Without religious freedom all other freedoms are precarious.

Human Rights
I would draw your particular attention to that last sentence, Mr. Speaker. In other words, the right of the individual to choose his own religion whatever it may be is one of the basic rights that we should all possess in a civilized society. Of course there are those who would try to induce people to accept the view that when they are brought before the law for teaching something that is seditious, the use of force to overthrow the state, or something of that sort, that is an infringement of civil liberty. It is not an infringement of civil liberty, but I believe that the only way to deal with sedition is by due process of law. A person is seditious if he wishes to promote the overthrow of the state by force, and should be accused openly in court and judged by his peers, and, if found guilty, pay the penalty of the crime. But I agree with the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) that there are those who would use civil liberty as a cloak to suppress civil liberty; that if they had the opportunity themselves of conducting the business of government and controlling the country they would deny to others the civil liberty which they demand for themselves. I agree with the hon. member for Spadina in what he said about that this afternoon.
Let us be careful that we are not deceived by those who use civil liberty as a means of propaganda against the institutions of liberty that we possess in a democratic land. So, Mr. Speaker, we are in support of this resolution for the reasons that have been given on all sides of the house this afternoon. We believe that we need to put such an act upon the statute books. If I may refer to the hon. member for Spadina again-he said that we live in a country where freedom probably is greater than in any other country except the United Kingdom. I think that is true, and yet nonetheless from time to time we have found persons persecuted and prosecuted without due process of law. We should endeavour to wipe out any blots that we have upon our national escutcheon, and endeavour to assure that every citizen of Canada has the right of open trial by jury, that safeguard of personal liberty guaranteed by Magna Carta in 1215, and the right of habeas corpus.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we welcome this resolution. It is in line with our own thinking. We hope the house will support it, and with that support the government will, first of all, do what the hon. member for Lake Centre suggests-I think it is a wise suggestion-refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada so that we may know where the federal authority lies and where the provincial authority

lies. Then write into our national constitution-as we may now when this parliament can amend our federal constitution-a federal bill of rights guaranteeing, as far as we are able, the civil rights of every citizen of Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Lionel Bertrand (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, I am opposed to this motion, for a number of reasons. I will set them forth briefly since, I take it, other members also wish to speak on this matter.
A bill such as the one suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) would not effect many changes in respect of personal rights in this country. On the other hand it would create a very large number of new problems; it would provoke so many differences of opinion, from every point of view, that it would be unwise to adopt it. In any event there are so many things to do in this country that, in this particular field, it would be better, for the moment at least, to keep our present system while attempting, all the while, to improve it.
To adopt such a bill would require a whole series of meetings, all of which would be fraught with a variety of difficulties. The first would be a jurisdictional wrangle between the dominion government and the provinces.
In 1948, if I am not mistaken, a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was set up to study the matter and, after several sittings, the committee finally decided to consult the provinces.
Only Saskatchewan answered in the affirmative. A few others did not reply at all, thus showing utter indifference towards the matter. The others objected entirely, stating that the federal government had no jurisdiction in that respect. They claimed, and I believe rightly so, that human rights come under civil rights, which are under the jurisdiction of the provinces and that these rights are protected by provincial laws.
A federal act concerning a declaration of rights would lead to a violent debate on provincial autonomy. Some provinces might use it as an electoral issue and that must be avoided. Besides, would the provinces ever agree to a single wording? That is so unlikely that it would be better to discard immediately the proposal made by the member for Lake Centre.
Another danger would be our own constitution which advises us to avoid bills of that kind. Different countries have different and varied constitutions. Some lend themselves to a bill of that kind; others do not. In the

United States, for example, the constitution is above congress and therefore above the legislators; thus the American parliament is limited in its supremacy. It is not the same in the commonwealth countries, including our own country. The Canadian parliament is supreme within the framework of its authority and our provinces are supreme within the sphere of their jurisdiction. The supremacy of our country and of our provinces is unlimited.
In a newspaper article written a few years ago on the matter, Mr. Paul Sauriol, a brilliant journalist of French Canada had this to say:
Under those conditions, even if the jurisdictional clash were settled, the passage of a bill of rights would not be unassailable since parliament, federal or provincial, remains above its own legislation which it can repeal.
A professor in the faculty of law of the university of Toronto, Mr. W. P. M. Kennedy, raised this objection when he appeared before the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. He stated that an effective bill of rights would require from the federal and provincial parliaments a surrender of their supreme powers. Short of a complete change in our political system, a bill of rights passed by parliament could be changed at any time.
There is a third difficulty, which is not the least: the impossibility of agreement being reached between the central government and the ten provinces.
However, everybody does not consider from an identical angle the rights with which we are endowed and which we enjoy. This prompted Mr. Sauriol, still considering the same problem, to write the following:
The boundaries which separate the exercise of a right from the misuse of that right are already well marked. But those who advocate a bill of rights claim that it will help abolish certain restrictions which they consider to be objectionable and which, according to them, have often been resorted to by the central government, as well as by the provincial legislatures and the municipalities in the past few years.
A debate on that point would soon end in a deadlock.
And further on he adds:
The point is this: What is considered as fundamental? The Catholic doctrine asserts the rights of the individual but considers that liberty must ,remain a faithful servant of the truth; if in the name of liberty one makes an attempt against truth, one becomes guilty of licence. On the other hand, there are some people who stress the importance of liberty and disregard the rights of truth, thus removing still further the boundaries of licence.
All those motives tell against the introduction of such a reform in our country. If I am not mistaken, in 1948, the social commission of the general assembly of the United Nations adopted a 21-article declaration of human rights, which was later approved. Nine members voted for the declaration and none against; six countries did not vote and 55704-47
Human Rights
Canada was among them. Mr. Pearson explained then why Canada had not voted on that occasion.
He asserted that Canada would have endorsed the UNO declaration but added that, faithful to its clear-cut policy, the Canadian government refused to encroach on provincial privileges; Canada, he said, had no intention of modifying her laws and customs which ensure respect of human rights.
Mr. Pearson was fully expressing, on that occasion, the views of the Canadian government and this answer, given before all the nations of the world, should be enough to silence all those who, to further their petty political interests, keep on repeating the same old story-which luckily is worn out, especially in my province-that the federal government is determined to deprive the provinces of their rights.
If there is a country in the world which does not need such a reform, it is Canada. Our laws protect the religious and national rights of everybody in the country as a whole and in the provinces in particular. Never shall a reform measure of the type put forward by the member for Lake Centre be approved and if it were, it would bring forth a flood of useless and acrimonious discussions, at a time when we can very well do without such debates.
Our present institutions could stand some improvement and that is what we should try to achieve above anything else.
The resolution demands freedom for broadcasting. I am not opposed to such a freedom, but after all that freedom should not be allowed to turn into indecency and to come into direct contradiction with the ideals of nearly all the population of Canada. Too many lecturers have been heard over the English network of C.B.C. defying the Canadian public and trying to destroy the understanding and the unity which it is the duty of the C.B.C. to serve. Whether Protestants or Catholics, Canadians have a right to demand that the C.B.C. respect their convictions, for the simple reason that free men do not like to be derided in public, especially when they, themselves, are footing the bill. Such lecturers as were denounced last year by the French and English press across our country should not be allowed to speak on the C.B.C. network. In my opinion, it is criminal, even for the sake of science to allow those lecturers to expound their theories, claiming that religion is but a blind effort and maintaining that the obstacle which prevents both peoples

Human Rights
and individuals from attaining true maturity is the very concept of right and wrong. Many others, on the English network, have been really propounding immorality.
I am told there has been an improvement; so much the better. I am the first to rejoice at this news.
The hon. member mentions the freedom of the press. I wish to insist on this point because I am a professional journalist, a newspaper owner as well as the secretary of an association numbering 92 members today in this country. Freedom of the press is one of the greatest freedoms essential to the world. Recently, a communique from the Canadian Daily Newspapers Association gave a definition of the freedom of the press: What is meant precisely by the familiar expression. "freedom of the press?"
It does not consist essentially in a special privilege granted to the editors of newspapers. It is rather an aspect of this more important freedom, freedom of all men to express their views openly and without fear. The press does not ask for any right which should not be acknowledged to every citizen of a democracy.
But the freedom of the press somehow symbolizes plain freedom, because, in our modern world, the press is the main medium of such information as is needed by the citizens in order to form a judgment on the actions of their leaders and to shape their opinion on public affairs. Without newspapers, or with a fettered or blinded press, they would be deprived of power and remain in darkness. Therefore, an unfettered press is the bulwark of every democracy.
In countries controlled by a dictatorship, newspapermen do not write what they want. If some dictatorships have lasted for years and years, and if some of them still exist in certain European countries, it is due to the muzzling of the press, which was unable to inform the people of the actual domestic news, and of the true international facts.
Even in democratic countries, the fears of the people, its frequent hesitations, its apathy, and its failure to co-openate, often have their roots in the fact that governments, for reasons of security which are sometimes exaggerated, and in order to distort, without justification, the real issues, hide behind an absolute silence or impose restrictions which ought not be applied.
To restrict the freedom of the press in a democracy is to strike directly at liberty itself. Nowadays, when distances have been abolished, when media for information are such that every-day news is set down at your very doorstep, the only really free press is that which, daily, without fear of reproach or reprisal, communicates to its readers true information and comments freely upon it.

We have, in Canada, a press which is, in fact, worthy of the privileges which democracy affords. Its news is based upon exactness and impartiality. Our news gathering agencies are reckoned among the best in the world. Some of our newspapers comment upon the news, declare themselves to be clearly independent and expose their opinions fearlessly, even though these may be open to discussion and are, in fact, widely discussed. However, since in doing so, they respect the code of professional ethics, they do make themselves useful to the public. As for subversive publications, they are rarer in this country than anywhere else. They have few readers since the Canadian people are not ready to subscribe to any other form of government than democracy or to accept teachings which are not in accord with their religious beliefs, patriotism or respect for human dignity. Therefore, in a country such as Canada, the press must receive from the government the co-operation which will enable it to carry out its function and to devote itself entirely to the progress of the country in its various spheres of activity. First of all, access to information, a thing that now exists in this country and, for tomorrow, the avoidance of any direct censorship or even of any infringement, no matter of what kind. Since it is recognized that the press is a public service-it is one we no longer can do without-let no governmental measures be permitted, wherein can be felt the hand of bureaucracy or the administration's uncompromisingness to unnecessarily paralyse its mission.
Why, for instance, should the government stubbornly maintain a sales tax on newsprint for newspapers, when magazines are exempted?
Why should the Post Office Department, after having raised last year the mail transport rates, persist in trying to find in rules, that are out-of-date and not in keeping with the spirit Of our times, ways of annoying the newspapers with puerile and trifling things?
Why should not the government take this splendid opportunity to ask the newsprint companies to sell their product at a lower price to the publishers of Canadian newspapers? Ninety per cent of our newsprint production is used outside of our country. Those national resources of ours are being shipped abroad. Are we to pay the same price as our neighbours for a product which belongs to us?

Some will say that those are questions of minor importance. They are however questions which may jeopardize tomorrow the small newspaper, especially the small weekly. In ten years, the price of newsprint has increased from $60 to $162 a ton. The basic salary for a workman's helper has increased from 58 cents an hour in 1942 to $1.20 an hour at the present time. The cost of printing service has increased by about 150 per cent in the last ten years.
It will be realized that even the increased subscription and national advertising rates have been unable to compensate for the present cost of publishing a newspaper.
The government must facilitate the part played by the newspapers because they are, as I said, a public service. And if that service is useful to the nation even in the most remote places, has the time not cOme for the government, which already spends large sums of money on national advertising, to establish officially a national news office whose task it would be to summarize impartially our laws, which have become so numerous that the mass of the public can hardly see through them, and to make them known throughout the whole country by means of well-written news advertisements in that indispensable medium, the daily or weekly newspaper.
A bill of human rights in my opinion would tend to complicate things unnecessarily. We have good laws. They give protection in all fields. The provinces have their own laws. What more could we ask for? Simply that such abuses as may creep in be corrected so that people may feel more and more that living in our country is a blessing, that this blessing is felt in the full enjoyment of freedom: the right to practise one's faith, the right to speak one's language, the right to follow one's customs in a country inhabited by people of different races and religions where everyone may pray to God in his own tongue, serve his country in his own tongue and dedicate his life, his home, his talent, his resources and finally all his assistance to the making of a greater, a more powerful and more prosperous Canada.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for this resolution. I am happy to associate myself with the members who have spoken in favour of it during this debate. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) upon his persistence in introducing a resolution of this type year after year. While up to date he and other hon. members of this house have not been 55704-474
Human Rights
able to move the government to action so far as a bill of human rights or a declaration of human rights and fundamental freedoms is concerned, there is no question that there is a much wider understanding in Canada of the principles involved in a resolution like this and of the dangers that threaten human rights and fundamental freedoms under conditions of crisis such as those we are living under at the present time.
Another interesting fact is that this type of debate demonstrates that regardless of differences of opinion that may be present in this house as between parties and as to the economic arrangements that are desirable and to the advantage of the Canadian people, we are united so far as our understanding of the processes of democracy are concerned and the need for the maintenance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Hon. members who have spoken in this debate have dealt with the need for a bill of human rights or as it is otherwise termed a declaration of human rights. In my opinion they have presented very sound arguments in support of their case. I am quite sure that they have expressed the opinions of a large number of representative and responsible organizations in Canada and an increasing number of Canadian people. Before I proceed any further may I say that it is like old times to see the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) listening so attentively.


Mr. Gibson:: Rapt.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want also to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by previous speakers concerning what is happening in South Africa today in an attempt to segregate the black race and to do them what we consider to be a great injustice. That is all I am going to say so far as the abstract principles of this resolution are concerned, and I shall now proceed from the abstract to the concrete by bringing to the attention of this house a particular case which developed in my constituency in recent weeks. I do this because I have been asked by a number of responsible citizens to bring the matter to the attention of the house and because it illustrates the need for a bill of human rights or a declaration of human rights and for some change in the procedures that are used at the present time to make certain that human beings are not damaged in their reputations as a result of the necessity for security regulations.
On November 28, 1951, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) brought to the attention of the house the discharge of an employee of the A. V. Roe Company in Malton

Human Rights
'*n orders of the security officials of the firm. In dealing with this case he said in part:
* tn all seriousness I say to this house it is an act of vicious dictatorship, perhaps thoughtless, but nevertheless an act of dictatorship. If we are to carry on our fight against communism, we must : continue our fight for freedom, justice, security,
' and for the dignity of the individual. If we allow these things to be destroyed through the methods I have mentioned, we are in very truth giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
I agree completely with the hon. member's remarks on that occasion. He was presenting to the house the case of an employee of a large company who was discharged for security reasons without the opportunity to find out why, to defend himself and so on.
; Further on in the same debate the hon. member had this to say:
' There are today three basic freedoms: freedom of life; freedom of the person, generally known as habeas corpus; and the freedom to work. To take away any of them in this modern age results in a failure of essential justice. In fact, it is much worse; it is the act of a dictatorship.


Mr. Sluder:: Are you speaking for the Sons of Freedom?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, not particularly. They are looking for a new leader so I suggest the hon. member make application. The remarks of the hon. member for York West on that occasion illustrate the strength of our democracy. I am one of those who differ, along with the remainder of the members of this group, with the economic opinions advanced by the hon. member for York West, but we are very happy to be associated with him and support him in his conception of democratic procedures and human rights. A few days later, on December 3, 1951, the Prime Minister (Mr. 1 St. Laurent) made a statement on security as ' the result of the remarks of the hon. member for York West, and I quote from page 1504 of Hansard as follows:
The reliability of the overwhelming majority of * industrial employees in Canada is beyond doubt. In the case of the few who cannot be said with certainty to be reliable, the government has always to consider two things: the need to avoid doing any injury to an individual and the protection of material vital to the security of this country.
We agree entirely with that. In common with other members of the house, I was pleased when the Prime Minister spoke on this . question and showed great concern over the matter. It was obvious to me that it was r unpleasant to him to know that in order to provide security for our country certain unusual regulations had to be given effect. The Prime Minister then went on to say:
There are usually positions in a plant that do not involve security, and transfers to them can be made. It may happen that in some plants, which are engaged wholly on defence work such transfers are impossible, for one reason or another. In those cases the company is faced with the choice
fMr. Herridge.]
of releasing the individual or giving up its Contract. These are the most difficult cases to handle. It may be that in all instances companies have not done their utmost to find means of making transfers. The importance of always doing so is being brought to their attention. Employers should always try to avoid dismissals if at all possible. They have a duty not to increase the difficulties or disabilities of persons whose only misfortune is that their reliability is open to question. It is very important that such persons should not be branded as disloyal.
We in this group think that that is a most satisfactory statement and on the whole a very fair approach to this situation. Then on page 1506 the Prime Minister in this same statement is reported as follows:
This means, of course, that the responsibility of the government is the greater to see that every case is carefully assessed and that no decisions as to the reliability of an individual are lightly taken.
And again:
The government is, however, fully aware of the importance of ensuring in so far as possible that no injury is done to any individual through the decisions that must be taken. Security procedures are constantly under review and if they can be improved, the government will always be ready to make the improvements and will always welcome and seriously consider constructive suggestions to that end.
I want to say in all fairness that I think the government has set a good example to the employers of this country in this most unpleasant task and necessary business. We all know that there has been a certain amount of screening of employees in connection with certain work under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. I understand that this has been done according to the terms set out in the statement of the Prime Minister and every consideration has been given to the rights of the individual and to his reputation and an effort made to avoid unfair publicity. I understand that in a few cases the government has found it necessary, because of doubts that had arisen, to transfer some individuals to work where there was no question of security involved.
The case I am bringing to the attention of the house is being brought up at the request, as I said previously, of a number of responsible citizens in my riding, of a trade union in my constituency and of other organizations. I am going to read briefly from a memorandum I have made up from a number of letters I have received so that I can present the facts as they have been presented to me. I might say that I do not know this man and I have never met him. He has written to me and I have to go entirely on the information that has been forwarded to me.
On Friday, January 11, at about 3 p.m., a resident of Trail, British Columbia, and employee of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, Limited, was summoned

from his job in Warfield and called over to the office of the personnel division. Upon entering the office, he was met by the manager of the division and informed that bad news was in store for him. He was then told that the company had information in its possession which indicated that he had come to Trail with a long term view of plotting some injury to the company and not primarily for the purpose of obtaining employment. The supervisor then gave the employee two alternatives: either he could voluntarily quit his job and nothing more would be said about it, or he would be discharged within an hour. The employee was shocked as never before in his life. He refused to quit his job and protested his innocence. He then asked the supervisor the source of the information he was acting on and the exact nature of the charge. He was met with an adamant and numbing refusal. The employee then asked for a full hearing so that he could prove his innocence. And again the supervisor shook his head and told him that the decision was final and there was nothing that he could do to alter the situation. He was then discharged and has since been marked down as an undesirable employee even though the company supervisors admit that his work record has been good.
What is this employee's background? I am told he is a young married man, twenty-six years of age. He was raised and educated at Foam Lake, Saskatchewan. At the age of eighteen, as soon as possible, he joined the Canadian active army and served for nearly three years in Canada and overseas with the armoured corps, receiving an honourable discharge in August, 1946. On leaving the army he found employment in the logging industry, and worked in various camps until April, 1949, when he suffered a broken leg as a result of a logging accident. He was a patient in St. Paul's hospital in Vancouver, where he met his wife who is now a nurse at the C. S. Williams clinic in Trail. After recovery from his accident he sold insurance for a time for the British Pacific Insurance Company, until October, 1950, when he went to work for the Canadian Pacific Railway at Nelson.
In July of last year he came to Trail, and soon afterwards started working for the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company in the coke ammonia plant at Warfield. His work record was good and on one occasion he was commended by his immediate boss for the quality of his work. Now, that is the information given to me.
As I said before, I do not know this man. I have never met him. I simply have to go on the correspondence forwarded to me from
Human Rights
the district which I represent. The man wrote! to me personally, and I am not going to read the letter. I read it very carefully. He wrote to me as his member, asking if I could do something for him owing to this unfortunate incident. He tells me in his letter that he( writes with a heavy heart as a result of this incident. He is a young married man just starting to build a home. He has a small family, and is expecting an addition to the family shortly. He tells me he comes from the prairie, and that he and his family have always been considered God-fearing people. He writes also to say that he cannot understand why he has not had an opportunity of defending himself or explaining his position.
In addition to that I might say that the trade union, which is the bargaining agent for the plant in Trail, has also written to me at length along similar lines. I have received correspondence from other responsible persons who are greatly concerned about the position of this young man. As the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has said, we all realize the need for security. We support the government in every effort it makes to ensure that our security is protected. But in this instance, Mr. Speaker, nothing was done to give effect to the government's proposal or suggestions. A very small section of this plant is subject to security regulations. Nothing was done about transferring this man, if there was an element of doubt, to some other department not associated with security in any way.
I mention this because we have to look at the problem from the point of view of the individual. This case directly concerns only one human being, his wife and family, but indirectly it affects us all. It is easy enough to feel impersonal about it. But think of the young man, and his plight. He served this country overseas, joining the army when he was eighteen years of age. He comes from what is generally termed a God-fearing family, yet is thrown out of employment and his reputation suffers to that extent. There is no question about the company being within its legal rights in discharging this man. As I understand it he had not been employed for the full six months, and up until that period the company has the option of discharging a man according to the terms of the union contract. The company in this case took advantage of that provision in the union contract.
It is an unfortunate incident, because the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company has had very good relations with its employees. It is one of the largest employers of labour in British Columbia. Throughout the years its employee relationships have

Human Rights
been good; in fact there has not been a strike in that plant since 1917. In this particular case the union grievance committee appealed to the management, and did what they could to present the young man's case, but to no avail. Here is a young veteran discharged, without any opportunity to answer questions or defend himself. Surely in such a large plant as this there was opportunity for him to be given employment in another part of the plant or in the various mines and other projects that the company is operating throughout the district. Many good people in the district are quite disturbed over this young man's plight. You can imagine the reaction to the position of a young man in those circumstances in a relatively small community. Those who know this young man personally are convinced he has suffered a great injustice.
As I said before, there is no question about it, this action is not in accord with the government's example. We all know that the screening of people for security measures is necessary in certain projects. We know that, as the Prime Minister has said, an element of doubt can arise without reflecting upon a person's reputation. Some information comes to hand showing that there is an element of doubt and the employer, on the basis of that information, is justified in transferring the man to another department. There may be a question of association, quite innocent from his point of view, but it may lead to an element of doubt. In some cases, as the Prime Minister has said, it is purely a matter of temperamental instability. The person is not considered the right type temperamentally to be doing work in which security is concerned. The point is that there is no opportunity, under any of these circumstances, for a man to know the charge or suspicions against him; there is no chance for him to hear the evidence and answer questions to prove his innocence.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I heartily agree with the remarks made by the member for Rosetown-Biggar in connection with these unfortunate cases. We believe every precaution should be taken to protect the citizen, his fundamental rights and human freedoms. In this connection I should like to say that, provided the law is obeyed and provided security is not jeopardized, the fact that an employee holds certain political views of which his employer disapproves should not, in a democratic country, put him in jeopardy of losing his livelihood. Full and complete discussion of all difficult problems is the surest method of obtaining a live, healthy and educated democracy.
fMr. Herridge.]
Mr. Justice Black has stated this proposition forcibly in the case of United Public Workers of America (CIO) v. Mitchell et al. (67 Supreme Court, 556), where he said:
In a country whose people elect their leaders and decide great public issues, the voice of none should be suppressed-at least such is the assumption of the first amendment. That amendment, unless I misunderstand its meaning, includes a command that the government must, in order to promote its own interest, leave the people at liberty to speak their own truths about government, advocate their own favoured governmental causes and work for their own political candidates and parties.
That is the end of the quotation from Mr. Justice Black's decision. An employer-employee relationship has in it such a power of dominance on the part of the employer that it is capable of thwarting the rights and desires of employees to engage in the basic democratic struggle. This is particularly so under our current economic system, where concentration of power in great monopolies, unless checked, places in the hands of the few men who operate them the opportunity of controlling the livelihood, and thus the freedom of speech, of a large part of our industrial papulation.
If we should decide that the state has no power to say to an employer that he cannot interfere with the political life or the political beliefs of the people who work for him, we may in effect be preventing a large section of our population from engaging in political action. There are quite a number of employers who have an unfavourable opinion of the political philosophy advocated by this group. In recent years, through the medium of new forms of communication and greater mass education, a larger percentage of our population has become increasingly interested and active in political life. It has come to be understood that a healthy democracy is one in which the democratic freedoms are increasingly provided and exercised.
In support of any argument I should like to quote from another famous and highly respected justice of the supreme court of the United States, Mr. Justice Holmes. In his dissent in the case of Abrams et al. v. United States (250 U.S. 616), he said:
But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our constitution.
We in Canada, Mr. Speaker,, are fortunate that there has not been 'the same hysteria

as in the United States with respect to security, the cold war and other matters associated therewith. I think we are exceedingly fortunate in that connection. The Canadian people are less given to hysteria and are, I believe, more stable under the conditions in which we are living today.
Yesterday I happened to be reading the Sunday issue of the New York Times. In the magazine section of the New York Times of March 23 I read an article which impressed me greatly with the growing concern of a large number of thinking people in the United States over the multitude of investigations and the effect they are having upon the very basis of democracy in that country. Do not forget that once you have been investigated and it becomes publicly known that you have been investigated, whether you are guilty or not, your reputation, without question, has been tarnished. I was greatly interested to read this article. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend it to the members of this house. As I say, it may be found in the magazine section of the New York Times of March 23. The article is headed "An Inquiry into Congressional Inquiries". The subheading reads: "Their increasingly punitive nature is decried as a corruption of a fair and valid function." The article is written by William S. White and there is this note about him:
William S. White of the Times Washington staff covered many of the congressional investigations since the end of the war. Here he departs from his straight reporting and expresses a personal opinion of what he considers a dangerous trend in the capital.
This is what he has to say, and I thought it was well stated:
The age of accusation and the era of profound ill-feeling now grimly enwrap the capital of the greatest power in the world, the home of a lost tolerance and the centre of a compassion that is now receding in memory. The square, massive, sad memorial to Abraham Lincoln, the rounded, softer and more pleasing pile that commemorates Thomas Jefferson-physically these remain; white and cold and lifeless.
Lincoln's capacity for forgiveness; Lincoln's understanding acceptance of man's weaknesses: Mr. Jefferson's ability even to live with dangerous thoughts-gone, it seems, are all these, and, it seems, gone past early recapture.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, that statement would not be true in Canada. We are pleased to support this resolution brought before the house by the hon. member for Lake Centre because we want to do all we can to make certain that no one would be able to write an article of that type about parliament hill in Canada.
Human Rights
Just before concluding I want to quote from Mr. Justice Brandeis, who so eloquently said in the case of Whitney v. California (274 US 357):
Although the rights of free speech and assembly are fundamental, they are not in their nature absolute. Their exercise is subject to restriction if the particular restriction proposed is required in order to protect the state from destruction or some serious injury . . . (But) to justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practised.
If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom.
The point I want to make in that connection, Mr. Speaker, is this. The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom.
We have tried, Mr. Speaker, to expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies that are preached by some people in this country. The threat to freedom is far greater where one's earning capacity is curtailed for upholding his political beliefs, and the invasion of private rights is far less if an employer is restricted in acting toward his employee in accordance with a bill of rights, such as that suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Man may not be able to live by bread alone, but he cannot live or exercise his freedom without it.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this. When making his statement the Prime Minister asked for constructive suggestions. I suggest, as did the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), that surely in this time of peace there can be some provision for a review board to review the case of a man whose loyalty, capacity or fitness is questioned. A county court judge, or two or three other responsible persons, could function as a review board that would have the opportunity to go over the evidence presented to it, to make as certain as possible that we are not doing an injustice to a Canadian citizen because of the necessity to be careful of our security.
My second suggestion is this, because I have noticed two or three cases similar to the one that I have brought to the attention of the house. As a matter of fact, I have here a copy of the Anglican Outlook. Like the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, I am an Anglican and I read among others the Anglican publications. In this magazine, the issue of March, 1952, there is described in a letter a similar occurrence in Montreal where a young engineer, employed by a company, was dismissed without knowing the

Human Rights
reason why. He professes his innocence and has no opportunity to prove it. I therefore urge the government to make every possible effort to see that these industrialists, who are undertaking contracts that may require a certain amount of security and protection, follow the example of the government and that they understand these procedures. In some cases you get clever men in industry who are not well versed in constitutional matters and who are not widely read; I have known men of that type who would call a man a communist if he expressed his belief in the principles of liberalism, because they knew nothing about it. The man may have used a few words that he had seen used in the press, as being used by a communist or fellow traveller or someone of that sort. Therefore, in their opinion, the man was a communist. I suggest that the government make every effort to see that these firms thoroughly understand the rules that the government has adopted and that they follow the government's example which, as I say, has been excellent so far as security arrangements are concerned, and the screening of government employees.
Finally, I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to investigate this case and to see if something cannot be done to have this young man re-employed. As I said before, I know only the facts as presented to me in writing and the information I have received from various organizations and constituents. I am, however, greatly concerned that we do not make a mistake in these matters when, as in this case, a young veteran, who has served this country, with a young family is in the position where his reputation is at stake, his livelihood and his future in jeopardy.
My final point is this. More than ever do we realize that there is a need for a bill of rights and fundamental freedoms or a declaration of them if we are going to make certain that Canada maintains its democratic practices and all Canadian citizens receive justice in the days to come.


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to delay the house for a little while. It was not my intention to take part in this debate until another day, but as I see that there is no one else on his feet, I feel that I must take this opportunity to say a few words on the matter.
I am going to tell the house first that I shall try to be as objective as possible. I will try not to let my temper get the best of me. Sometimes when I let my temper go,
I put a little bit too much heat into the debate. At this time I shall try to be as calm as possible.

When I came into the house tonight I listened for a while to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). He was referring to what I believe was the Magna Carta of the government of Saskatchewan. Was not that so?


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Pierre Gauthier: I should like to have asked him a question about it, especially with regard to a school item. In my province the people are taxed for the education subsidies. We have a special fund for education. Everyone, no matter to what creed he belongs, pays his taxes to the government and the subsidies are equally divided and distributed to all the denominations, to all kinds of schools including Catholic, Protestant and Jewish. I should like to have asked the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar or any Saskatchewan member if the same thing applies in their province; because I think there is a special right of the individual to receive from the government equal division of the taxes received by that government, especially for his schools. I should like to know whether, in Saskatchewan, they have a system of double taxation or whether they are operating in the same way as we operate in Quebec. Can any hon. member from Saskatchewan answer that question? Somebody tells me that they have double taxation; that the Catholics are obliged to pay taxes like all the others, but they are obliged to maintain their own schools as well. That is double taxation. We have not that in Quebec. We respect the right of the individual to be educated in his language and in his faith as well, without being obliged to pay double taxation. That is human rights. That brings me to say that if we wish to have a bill of rights in Canada we have first to respect the constitution.
I hold in my hand a declaration of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) at the UNO. It is contained in a periodical dated January, 1949. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
I wish to make it clear here that in regard to any rights which are defined in this document, the federal government of Canada does not intend to invade other rights which are also important to the people of Canada. By this I mean the rights of a province under our federal constitution.
Therefore, if we are to have a bill of rights in Canada, we must respect the constitution, and every province has to take part in the enactment of this bill of rights.


Mr. Knight:: I can answer my hon. friend's question as far as my city is concerned.


Pierre Gauthier: I mean Saskatchewan.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I live in Saskatchewan. As far as my city of Saskatoon is concerned, any ratepayer oan designate the institution to which he wishes his taxes to go, either to the public school or to the separate school, and his wishes in that regard are carried out. So far as I know we have no double taxation. He pays his taxes either to the separate school or to the public school. That is as I understand it. There are gentlemen behind the hon. member who are from Saskatchewan and can set him right.


Pierre Gauthier: They know it. I was asking the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, but he is not in his seat. I then asked any hon. member from Saskatchewan if he could tell me. The hon. member says that there is not double taxation in his city, but what about the province? That is what I should like to know, just as a matter of information. I want to learn what is going on in my country.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Ask the people behind you.


Pierre Gauthier: I do not need them to defend my case.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The information is easily obtainable. I am not prepared at this moment to give facts and figures.


Pierre Gauthier: You can give them to me later on. I am always open to conviction.


Irvin William Studer: The hon. member for Saskatoon is supporting the resolution; he ought to know. It is a fundamental freedom.


Pierre Gauthier: If we must have a bill of rights we should be sure of the phraseology. In some countries of the world they have bills of rights, and in some countries they do not observe what is written in black and white in their constitutions.
Let us go to the United States for a while. Is the problem of coloured people settled in the United States in every part of that country? No. Yet, they have a bill of rights there. They are not supposed to have any discrimination of race, religion, creed, or colour. Yet, they have discrimination. Has my hon. friend not heard about two bills that were presented to the congress of the United States in 1949, the Thomas bill and the Barden bill? The Thomas bill gave the right to each state to decide whether the federal subsidy should be refused to private institutions. But there was another bill, which was much more radical. It was moved by Representative Barden. By this bill he bluntly prohibited the application of the federal subsidy to institutions other than 55704-48
Human Rights
the public schools. Well, if a nation has a bill of rights and says that there is no discrimination whatever within the boundaries of that country in so far as race and colour are concerned, and still has that discrimination that I have just mentioned, then that bill of rights does not mean what it says.
We have to be very careful if we have a bill of rights in Canada. We must be careful to see that it applies to all the provinces, including Quebec as well as the others. The United States is the prototype of the democratic countries of the world at the present time. The United States is taxing its citizens heavily to protect and defend democracy in the world, and yet at the same time there are discriminations in so far as religion and colour are concerned. Are they sincere? I hope they were sincere when they enacted their bill of rights, but they are not applying it according to the language that is written in that bill of rights. I would not like that to happen in Canada.
Other countries of the world have bills of rights. Spain has been mentioned here in the house, Franco-Spain as we call it. Well, they have as much freedom in Franco-Spain in regard to religion as anywhere else, in spite of what happened lately. I had the privilege of going to Spain and I spent seven days in Madrid. I looked around and I gathered official documents, which I have not here at the present time. I remember very well somebody took me around Madrid, and I saw Protestant churches wide open in full activity, and I have seen synagogues Open in full activity in Madrid. Of course Madrid is not the place where you can find many Protestants or Jews. The greater number of Protestants are to be found in the cities on the border of the Mediterranean sea and the Atlantic ocean. There are about 28,000 or
30,000	Protestants in Spain and they have the right of worship. I know there are certain restrictions which I do not like to see exist, but at the same time to say that their bill of rights prevents any other creed than Catholic to exist is not the truth. It is not the state of mind of the government of Spain at the present time, although much has been said against Spain in that connection.
If I were to read to the house the declaration of Sir Basil Brooke of Northern Ireland some hon. members would open their eyes wide. I will not read it. I said I would try to be calm, as much as I could during the course of my speech. But it is not very interesting and it is not very edifying. There you can find in the mouth of a prime minister full discrimination against religion. If somebody does not believe me I have it here and I can show it to him.
HOUSE Or COMMONS
Human Rights
Let me refer to the U.S.S.R. Article 133 of the charter states that the people of that country have universal, direct and equal suffrage and at the same time they are allowed to have but one candidate, who has to be a communist candidate. That is not what the article says. Article 141 reads in part:
The right to nominate candidates is secured to public organizations and societies of the working people.
But everyone knows that in the U.S.S.R. those who wish to be candidates have to belong to communist organizations, have to be members of the workers' organizations which are communist, and must be communist or the N.K.V.D. would put them back in line. Everyone in the house knows that. What is the use of having a bill of rights, and setting out the terms very carefully, if you do not put it into operation? It is absolutely useless if that is what happens. We want to be more advanced. We want to go further. We do not want a bill of rights that is not respected. It is absolutely useless to have a bill of rights if it is treated in that way.
What is the use of having a bill of rights? I do not say it is all bad. But what about the bill of rights of the United Nations? I have a copy of it here, which is dated December 10, 1948. Let us look at article 16, which reads:
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Well, it is absolutely illogical to think that we have to protect the rights to found the family and at the same time grant the right to the dissolution of marriage. It is absolutely illogical. We have often heard hon. members speak of the social cell, which is the family. At the same time in the bill of rights we give the right to dissolve marriage. We have a bill on the order paper at the present time to give the right to two provinces to go to the exchequer court for divorce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have the right to come to this parliament now.


Pierre Gauthier: They have the right to come to the Senate, but it is a special law. With his bill the hon. member is giving a new divorce court to Quebec and Newfoundland. Whether he likes it or not, that is what he is doing to those two provinces. However, we will debate the issue when it is brought before the house.
I find article 16 of the United Nations bill of rights to be illogical. If the family is the basis of society, then why put anything in that article to dissolve the family and break

it up? It is logical to my mind that if you divorce a husband and wife you break up the family. Surely that is logical and reasonable to suppose. If you break the marriage, you break the children. And if you break the children, how can you avoid breaking the nation?
After the fall of France I heard French statesmen saying that the cause of its fall was that the families were too small, and that France had been decreasing in population. I have seen that after the war the French government has given special subsidies to families along the lines of our family allowances in Canada. They give, too, special rates on railways for the benefit of large families, and these rates include the children as well as the fathers and mothers. They believe what they have said, and1 they are being logical.
If we want a bill of rights, then we should study it carefully. I have made reference to other countries which have used discriminatory methods. I have noted that within the last month or two there has been in Sweden indication of a democratic gesture. In that country Catholics and Jews did not have the right to hold positions in the government, but I believe within the last while that process has been changed whereby Catholics and Jews are now entitled to hold government positions. This is quite an improvement.
Then the federal constitution of Switzerland does not permit Jesuits to conduct normal activities within that country, nor did they have the right to restore the old monasteries of that order.
I say that if we want a bill of rights in Canada we had better be very careful, and give it study for a long time. We shall have to call to our aid the most intelligent and the most objective-thinking people in our country. We will have to bring to our help the better elements of every province, so that our constitution may be respected, and so that in none of the provinces, after a bill of rights has been accepted and adopted', will we find discrimination such as is now found, and particularly in respect of the school question in the other provinces. I believe Quebec set a good example on that special item, one that should be followed by all the provinces of Canada.
I have no doubt that a number oi members will not take seriously what I am saying. I assure them however that I am serious and that what I am saying is true. Indeed, I could prove it by documents I have in my possession. So, once again let us study this bill of rights, before adopting it, so that we may be more logical in our actions than some other countries have been.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is most anxious to take part in this debate-


Mr. Casselman:: Bring him in, then.


Walter Edward Harris: -but unfortunately he is ill today.


Arza Clair Casselman: Where is he?


Walter Edward Harris: I therefore move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Graydon: No. Call the yeas and nays.
St. Lawrence River
Drew
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fraser
Graydon
Green
Hees
Herridge
Hodgson
Jones
Knight
Knowles
Macdonnell (Greenwood)
McGregor
Noseworthy
Pearkes
Stewart (Winnipeg North) White (Middlesex East) Wright-28.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had my pair been here I am sure he would have voted, with me against the motion.


Mr. Cafherwood:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was paired, but I inadvertently voted.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER PREVENTION OF EROSION AND REMEDY OF LOSSES ALREADY SUFFERED

Mr. Arthur Masse (Kamouraska) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give early consideration to the advisability of examining thoroughly the causes of the ever-increasing erosion of the shores of the St. Lawrence, and the natural and artificial means which could be used in order to remedy the losses already suffered and to prevent such disastrous consequences in the future.
(Translation) :
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to introduce this motion which concerns part of the district that covers about a thousand miles of the shores of the St. Lawrence river. After having received representations from an important group from my county and the surrounding districts and having been familiar for some considerable time with the effects of erosion on the shores of the St. Lawrence river, I am happy to submit this proposal to the house.
Anyone can realize the effects of erosion when it has taken place, but let us think of the despair of the small farmer when he contemplates perhaps the loss of a building, perhaps the loss of a piece of land which was dear to him, or some other disaster.
In the practice of my profession I often had the chance to see the effects of erosion. Sometimes a few hundred feet of land if not 500 have been washed away by extremely heavy tides. In other places there is cause for deep despair whenever the tide is too strong.
What does erosion mean, in the first place?
It means the entire or partial disintegration of the soil, brought about by various causes, natural as well as artificial, and taking into account the nature of the soil, its exposure, the

St. Lawrence River
quality of its maintenance, and whether it is under cultivation or covered with trees, Indeed a calcareous shore will be less affected than one made up of alluvial soil, that is a soil having rather fine particles, which offers practically no resistance to erosion. Therefore, everything depends on the way the shore is exposed. It is clear that a naturally slopy bank will be less affected than a steep bank. A survey of the shores of the St. Lawrence will show at one place a headland made up of calcareous or aqueous rock which will withstand breakers and bad weather. Elsewhere stretches rich flat open-country where the capacity for protection is lowered to a minimum.	.
And what about the banks that are generally exposed to the east and northeast wind? Obviously they do not resist as well as those that are exposed to the west winds.
In the early days of the colony, the banks were protected by a wooded area, in which the soil was clustered with roots of trees and could resist erosion to a certain extent. It is quite certain that under those circumstances the dangers were reduced to a minimum. The soil at certain times appeared to get protection from the alluvial deposits of tides and could stand their first thrust without deterioration, Today, however, agriculture having displaced the forest, the soil in bays, lending itself to farming and having been submitted to intensive cultivation, is. surely not in the same condition as it was in those early days.
Moreover, if it were possible to distribute this rainfall uniformly over the year, it would be much easier to regulate erosion; but as the rainfall, which is more or less the same during the year, is not equally distributed, there arise some extremely difficult conditions.
Supposing that the waters of a stream, instead of taking some time to reach the St. Lawrence, rush to that river, because of extensive deforestation along most of our streams, in a comparatively short space of time, at a moment of extremely high tide, the soil, under such circumstances would become practically semi-liquid and would offer no resistance to weathering.
It is admitted that most of the plateaus along the banks of the St. Lawrence have been deforested to excess, leaving the soil bare, with practically no water penetration, so that the water flows immediately towards the lower
{Mr. Masse.]
plateaus where it is fully absorbed. Consequently, the soil offers practically no resisj tance to erosion.
May I now quote, in support of my statement, the words of Mr. Avila Bedard, the dean of the faculty of surveys and forestry of Laval university:
The forest adds undeniable beauty to a picturesque landscape, hides in its mysterious depths abundant game for the hunter's pleasure and profit, purifies the air, asepticises subsidiary waters, prevents sudden thermometric variations, regulates the distribution of rainfalls, moderates the speed of winds, stabilizes, through its multiple roots, the soil on steep slopes, directs the formation, feeding and maintenance of the streams.
There we have an idea of what deforestation may produce. In the county of Kam-ouraska, there are vast plains practically at a level with the waters of the St. Lawrence where dikes have been put up.
These works, built by means of piles, have been carried out in order to prevent very strong tides from ruining the land and destroying the harvest which so rich a soil might have borne. Erected more than two hundred years ago, the works are still perfectly preserved; it stands to reason that it might be advantageous for us, if asked to do so, to carry out the experiment in some similar place.	P
I would be happy to learn that a formula has been devised which would solve once and for all the problem of provincial and federal rights in connection with these works. I am not qualified to discuss the matter from a legal standpoint; but some of my colleagues may be willing to do it. However, I wish we were able to give a satisfactory answer to all those who ask us to carry out works that might prove useful to the landowners along the St. Lawrence. I wish the various governments would stop passing the buck.
The unlimited working of virgin forests is such as to make much worse the damage wrought by high tides.
I have had occasion, while carrying on my business as a surveyor, and that is only in the past twenty years, to observe how great is the damage wrought, in certain circumstances, by erosion.
However, when analysing the circumstances in which erosion has wrought the damages it has, it seems to me it would be easy to prevent, or at least to reduce, its ill effects on the owners of riverside property in these towns.

When I said a moment ago that regulating waterways would be most beneficial, I did not mean in so far as the immediate cause was concerned but with respect to the remote cause; as a matter of fact, if all rivers could be regulated in such a way as to ensure a constant flow, it is absolutely certain we would no longer be plagued by very heavy rains, the effect of which is to liquefy the soil, so that it no longer offers any resistance to erosion.
When works are carried out on the banks of the St. Lawrence by one of the governments and when they offer an obstacle to the tide and whether it be a wharf or a dam or any other obstacle placed across the river of at its mouth, it is most certain that any damages are the responsibility of the government that has carried out these projects. If a cause must produce an effect, it is undeniable that the causes of erosion resulting from those works may be attributed to the government which did those works.
By what means can we provide for identical cases?
About a week ago, I received from a forestry engineer who is a colleague of mine a request concerning a district located on the north shore, where I think the engineering service is attempting to stabilize some ground at the mouth of the Moisie river. It would be possible to make it comparatively stable, but the ground must first be protected by means of retaining walls. The best way to protect the places thus exposed would be to build retaining walls in such a way as to dam up the tide and prevent it from producing those damages which may be seen after each excessive tide, especially in the spring or fall at equinox time. These protective walls may be made of timber or concrete. As I stated a moment ago, the Seigniors of Kamouraska, some two hundred years ago, used to drive in rows of stakes backed by masses of earth on which grows an abundant vegetation; this last element is in itself a source of stability and firmness for the ground, while ensuring protection to the inhabitants of the riverside. Mr. Speaker, I have dealt very briefly with the damage, more visible in certain areas and less so in others, that is generally felt all along the banks of the St. Lawrence.
I have set forth, to the best of my knowledge, what I believe to be the best direct and indirect means of preventing this
St: Lawrence River
damage. My suggestion in the way of preventive measures would be to erect protective walls of a kind calculated to ensure the riverside resident that his dear old house will remain as it was when his ancestors were alive, thus ensuring a better protection to the area and making myself useful to my own community, in particular, and more generally to the residents established on the shores of the St. Lawrence.


Mr. Lomer Brisson (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give early consideration to the advisability of examining thoroughly the causes of the ever-increasing erosion of the shores of the St. Lawrence, and the natural and artificial means which could be used in order to remedy the losses already suffered and to prevent such disastrous consequences in the future.
I congratulate the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Masse) for having introduced the resolution and for the clear technical explanation he has given of it.
The problem of erosion directly concerns the county of Saguenay. 1 have in my files more than fifteen requests coming from different municipalities of the county of Saguenay. I have some from Tadoussac, Petites Bergeronnes, Les Escoumains, Saint-Paul-du-Nord, Raguenau, Pointe-aux-Outar-des, Baie Saint-Ludger, Godbout, Riviere Sainte-Marguerite, Riviere Moisie, Sheldrake, Magpie, Riviere Saint-Jean, Longue-Pointe de Mingan et Natashkuan.
In some cases, Mr. Speaker, plots of farm land may be endangered; in other instances villages are threatened and particularly, as the previous speakers pointed out, one whole village is also threatened on the Moisie river, where the federal government is now building a radar station.
I believe that the federal government should pay more adequate attention to the problem, because it is always being repeated, in this kind of request, that the federal government may intervene only when damages are caused by federal structures. Well, I understand that this matter affects equally municipalities, provinces and the federal government. I approve without reserve the resolution to carefully examine the position in the near future, with a view to determining the reasons for this erosion and to find the ways and means by which the three governments concerned could remedy the situation..

St. Lawrence River


Mr. A. Phileas Cote (Maiapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I did not think I would be speaking a second time today, for I had no idea the other debate would come to such an abrupt end. However, I am glad to support the motion of my hon. friend, the member for Kamouraska (Mr. Masse), not because it gives me the feeling of participating in what one might be tempted to call a "family compact", as when one sees a gathering of people from lower Quebec, but it has happened here that members from one region have called for the co-operation of their colleagues, ours for instance, and therefore, considering that the St. Lawrence flows through the province of Quebec and that the seaway did not bring it to the head of the great lakes, we may this evening, without appearing too bold, beseech the other members of the House of Commons to join us in our attempt to express a wish to the government; and as far as I am concerned, or rather as far as my constituents are concerned, we hope that this wish will find expression in some practical measure.
May I acquaint the house with the case of Petite Matane. I have not said anything about it yet since I did not think it necessary to speak about it openly, on the floor of the house. I had thought that urgent repairs having had to be carried out last year in my county, it would be seen to it that this would not happen again.
I had at the time warned the government that unless a protective wall were erected at Petite Matane the church and rectory would be washed away, that part of the cemetery would float on the angry waves of the St. Lawrence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I hear some of my friends laughing, but you know, Mr. Speaker, that coffins did go wandering on the angry waves of the St. Lawrence in my constituency and that we did put up a wall, post haste, the coffins, by that time, having probably reached the county of Gaspe, or the gulf, or even the ocean.
I do not find that funny at all. I understand that the dead will not come back to vote for Phileas Cote; I also understand that possibly the relatives of the dead will not vote for me either, but that is not why I am speaking this evening. It is to prevent the rectory and church of Petite Matane from sailing away to the other side of the Atlantic.
I have no objection to our providing and sending overseas all that is necessary to

maintain our position internationally, but I absolutely refuse to have the dead brought out of the cemeteries and to have the parish priest go sailing in his rectory to deliver the money we send.
I also wish to speak of the Matane home for the aged. When the old folks' home burned in Rimouski, emergency repairs had to be made to keep the building upright, so that it too would not glide away on the troubled waters of the St. Lawrence.
Fortunately, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) was again bent on spoiling me by providing us with the necessary help, when that situation occurred.
But everything is linked to that point and I believe that we have settled a problem which I think should be considered in the light of the resolution.
I know that concerning Matane, the department engineers at Rimouski have claimed that harbour was being filled up not by debris carried by the Matane river, for then the matter would come under the provincial jurisdiction, but by sand from the St. Lawrence river.
Until the St. Lawrence river is dredged it seems to me that it will be impossible to remove the causes of this erosion which happens every spring in Matane harbour.
I am therefore asking the Minister of Public Works and the rest of the government to study this question, which many members, especially those from the province of Quebec, have deemed important enough to raise here.
It is a question which must be dealt with and which deserves a complete and immediate study. I am sure the Minister of Public Works and the government will show their good will and that the people of that district will be protected. Hon. members from the other provinces will forgive us for speaking at such length on this question of erosion, but I believe this is as much a national emergency as the floods at Winnipeg, the grain problems in Saskatchewan and other catastrophes which they call disasters. Well, the problem of erosion along the St. Lawrence river does not concern only the province of Quebec but the country as a whole since those conditions must be remedied before the authorities can go ahead with the St. Lawrence deep waterway project.
(Text):


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with what the previous speakers have said about the dangers

of erosion. I should like very briefly to draw the attention of the government to the tremendous damage that has been done by the erosion and the recent very severe flooding of the Toronto islands. This tremendous damage actually threatens the continued existence of these islands, which are a vitally important part of the Toronto harbour. In fact, without these islands, the Toronto harbour would cease to exist. If these islands are permitted to be damaged any further, then the whole Toronto harbour, and millions of dollars involved in harbour equipment, will be very seriously threatened.
I urge the government to build a breakwater and groynes, which are needed to protect these islands from further flooding and erosion, and thereby maintain this vitally important part of the future St. Lawrence seaway. If these islands are further permitted to deteriorate it will cost the government many many millions of dollars, in fact many times what it would now cost, to put up the breakwater and groynes, when the time comes to construct the St. Lawrence seaway, and when the Toronto harbour will be a very important world port.
I think it is good common sense and good economy for the government now to take these steps, and I urge the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), who I see is fortunately in the house at the moment, to have a thorough and immediate survey made of what is needed, and when that is determined to proceed immediately in order to save the very great cost which will be incurred if this flooding and erosion are allowed to continue unchecked.
(Translation):


Mr. L. Langlois (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted in the first place to offer my very warm congratulations to my hon. friend, the member for Kamouraska (Mr. Masse) who made such an able and detailed statement when moving this important motion. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this motion, as I have already had the honour a few years ago of placing an almost identical motion on the order paper of the house.
I had this motion put on the order paper because my own county of Gaspe, like most of the districts of the lower St. Lawrence, is also threatened by this calamity which happens every year, especially in the spring and in the fall when the St. Lawrence, swelled high with the breaking-up of the ice
St. Lawrence River
or storms, causes the water to rise and bring about considerable erosion to the shores in our district.
I could give you many instances where irreparable damage has thus been caused. But to be brief, I shall merely recall what happened in Ste-Anne-des-Monts where, a few years ago, five or six residential and commercial buildings were thrown into the sea by tides which were causing considerable erosion to the bank at that place. More recently still, about a year and a half ago, a similar occurrence at Cap-Chat destroyed and threw into the sea two or three buildings. In fact, in a certain place, a stretch of land of some thirty to forty feet wide was literally washed away by the flood.
From Mechins, through Capucins Cap-Chat, Ste-Anne-des-Monts, Mont-Louis and following the whole north shore of the Gaspe peninsula and reaching into Chaleur bay, we have had in the past similar disasters causing considerable damage.
The resolution introduced by my hon. friend nevertheless offers a rather complex solution. In fact, the jurisdiction of the legislatures would first have to be determined with regard to ways of remedying the present situation.
My colleague in the provincial house, the member for Gaspe-Nord, introduced last year in the Quebec legislature a motion almost identical to the one now before us. He took the opportunity to make a splendid review of the situation and he pointed out that a remedy was needed at once. But, unfortunately, the only answer he received from the Quebec government, through the prime minister himself, was to the effect that the provincial government was not responsible for the elements. Such answers do not solve the problem, particularly when given by a leader who has taken over the direction of public affairs in his province.
I am ready to admit-and nobody I imagine would deny it-that this erosion is essentially due to the action of elements. But we have found in the past that all governments, be they federal or provincial, have always worked together to prevent similar catastrophes or, at least, to find a remedy to similar disasters. I need only mention the flooding of the Fraser valley, in British Columbia, of the Red river floods, and of the disasters which befell Cabano and Rimouski; all these

St: Lawrence River
events -Have shewn wHat spectacular results may be achieved by two governments really willing to take some common action in the face of similar catastrophes. I do realize that such co-ordinated action by the federal and provincial governments is possible only when the catastrophe takes such proportions that it becomes a national emergency.
Hon. members who have spoken before me have given examples of similar damage and calamities. They constitute, I believe, sufficient proof that this damage, this loss, is really on a national scale. I am confident that we will find in this house other members who will rise in support of this motion and provide us with examples such as the ones which have already been given during this debate.
I do not think that the difficulty of reaching an agreement between the federal government and the provincial government with a view to providing the necessary remedial action should be an insuperable obstacle to the solution of this problem.
At the present time, the Department of Public Works includes each year in its estimates certain amounts to compensate for similar damages, provided, however, that such damages were caused by some project carried out by a department of the federal government, such as, for instance, the building of a wharf, the dredging of a river, etc. Another condition would have to be added to this vote or a new vote inserted in the estimates, to include any retaining wall necessary to prevent damages caused by the kind of erosion mentioned in the motion debated tonight.
I am of the opinion a complete survey of the problem would have to be made. I believe such a survey could be carried out jointly by the federal government and the provincial governments. It should be a complete survey of the situation with a view to finding the most appropriate remedies.
I do not hesitate to suggest, right now, that the federal government reach an agreement with the legislatures concerned at the earliest possible time.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes the effects of those damages are very disastrous, not only for the individuals concerned, but also for the economy of a whole district.
As an example let us take my county where fishing establishments are to be found here and there along the shores of the Gaspe [Mr. Langlois (Gaspe) .1
peninsula. Those fishing establishments are constantly threatened by erosion. I do not think it is necessary for me to prove to the house that fishing is perhaps the most important industry ip our district. What would happen if erosion should bring about the loss of nearly all or of a good part of our fishing establishments. Our producers would soon find themselves unable to fill the large orders they receive for their products and, as a result, a large number of the people of my county would be deprived of their livelihood.
Those arguments do not apply only to the Gaspe peninsula. The same is true of Saguenay and Matane counties and of the district mentioned by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees).
It is getting late and I would not wish to deprive any of my colleagues of the opportunity of speaking on the subject. I do not want to resume my seat, however, without again asking the federal government to find a way of reaching an agreement with the provinces concerned so that at least a full survey be made of the matter-not only a brief investigation to satisfy public opinion which has been requesting such a study for years. I believe an agreement could be worked out between the federal and provincial governments so that together they may find a solution to the problem, without interfering with their respective jurisdictions.
I do not think that our Canadian constitution should interfere with the solution of such an important problem. I do hope that a survey will be made in the near future so that we may be able, through the co-operation of all the governments concerned, to solve this serious problem in a permanent way. (Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be natural if I were to say a word or two in addition to what has been said because, after all, my own constituency is suffering from conditions which have been described already by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees).
The waterfront along Greenwood is being eroded at an alarming rate, and great destruction is being caused. I might point out that this destruction is particularly noticeable right in an area which contains an institution which certain members of the house will regard as even more important than Toronto harbour: I refer to the Woodbine race track.

The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), disarming as he always is, has told us he has sent an engineer to inquire into the situation. No doubt that engineer will one day bring us back a report which the minister will bring in. It will be a very interesting report on the destruction which has been caused. But I would hope the minister would be able to carry the matter far beyond that, so that we may have this recurring difficulty considered and guarded against in such a way that those who live in the area, particularly the residents of Toronto island, and those who live along the waterfront in my own riding, may have cause to believe that effective remedial measures will be taken.
I was interested in the speech of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois) because he introduced an idea which, to my mind, is important-though up to the present time evidently no progress has been made along that line-and that is his suggestion as to provincial responsibility. It is too bad that we have not the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) here this evening to give us his opinion, but we were informed earlier in the evening that for overwhelming, serious reasons, none of which was disclosed to us, he was unable to take part in an earlier debate.


Walter Edward Harris: May I point out that I said he was ill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I could not hear that part. I asked afterwards whether he was ill and nobody seemed to know. I do apologize, but I suppose it was one of those illnesses which, however unfortunate it may be for the member concerned, was of certain advantage from the point of view of the party.


Walter Edward Harris: It was 'flu and
he telephoned me today after having had several penicillin treatments.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister please express my most sincere sympathy to the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We will just leave it at that. I did not understand that he was ill and I am not trying to be funny about his illness. Hon. members will agree that it was a rather unfortunate wind-up to the debate we had earlier.
I just want to say that this is a serious situation. The suggestion by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois) that there was a provincial aspect to it interested me. I am glad to know that the Minister of Public
St. Lawrence River
Works (Mr. Fournier) has already taken steps. I dp hope that this matter will now be regarded as something that should be followed through to a successful conclusion.
iTranslation):	j


Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Masse) was his usual modest self when he said tonight that he had dealt very briefly and very incompletely with the problem he wished to place before the house. Personalty, as an engineer, I believe that the member for Kamouraska has made a most interesting statement of a problem which concerns, gs we have seen, not only the representatives of the counties situated along the shore? of the St. Lawrence but even members representing certain areas of the province of Ontario.
Besides, I do not know of anyone more qualified than the hon. member for Kamouraska, who is a professor at the faculty of forest engineering and surveying of Laval university in Quebec and an expert in expropriation cases, to assess the great damage wrought in the counties located along the shores of the St. Lawrence.
The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois) also gave us a brilliant account of the situation. He mentioned the damages which might befall the fishermen in his county, because of the erosion. May I be allowed to state, in turn, that as a representative of Levis county, I take particular interest in this problem. In past years, particularly since I entered this house, I have received numerous requests, particularly from the municipalities of St. Romuald and of New Liverpool on the St. Lawrence, for the erection of works, in stone and cement, or in reinforced concrete, to protect not the river front but especially the queen's highway in those municipalities. This highway, which goes through the municipalities situated near the river, is in danger, particularly in the spring and fall, when the tide rises to a level of twenty to twenty-one feet. Besides, the Department of Public Works has acknowledged the urgency of these works by building, in the municipality of St. Romuald, a retaining wall over a distance of 500 to 600 feet.
Mr. Speaker, I especially trust our economy will be such as to allow the Minister of Public Works, who always lends a sympathetic ear to our requests, although he does not always grant them, to see to it that this year, in view of numerous representations by

St. Lawrence River
members, adequate works will be undertaken to put an end to the damage caused by erosion along the St. Lawrence.
This matter includes another highly important aspect which no one has mentioned as yet. The fact is that damages caused by erosion of the St. Lawrence are destroying, in some areas, thousands of acres of land which might be occupied or used, either for agriculture or for some other purpose. That means that any expenditures made, on the one hand, to build retaining walls would be recovered in our national economy through the reclaiming of thousands of acres of land which could be used for agricultural or other purposes, as I have just indicated.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to labour the point, since I am sure that the Minister of Public Works is well acquainted with the situation. I know that the district engineers at Montreal, Three Rivers, Quebec and Ri-mouski, and also the members have made many such requests in many instances, and have told him about this. But again I wished to associate myself with those who spoke
before me to emphasize once more the urgent nature of this problem and I trust that, before long, the member for Kamouraska in particular will have cause to rejoice at having again so brilliantly brought up this problem in this house.
( Text):
On motion of Mr. Bourget the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will resume the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply. If the motion carries we will call three departments, external affairs, agriculture and transport. We will just call an item in each department and have the committee rise.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 25, 1952