1960-08-03

SAUGEEN INDIAN RESERVE


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1956 have the members of the Saugeen Indian band voted upon a resolution to surrender a certain portion of their reserve land to the corporation of the county of Bruce, such land to be a road allowance of approximately seven miles in length?
2.	If so, and with respect to each such vote (a) upon what dates were they conducted? (b) how many members of the band were in attendance? (c) how many voted in the affirmative? (d) how many voted in the negative?
3.	What action, if any, has been taken to effect the surrender of the land?


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to question No. 208, there was no surrender of the roadway referred to in the hon. member's question. What we are concerned with here is not a formal surrender but a transfer of the land in question, which is technically quite a different matter under the Indian Act. The matter was considered at a band meeting on June 23, 1958 at which 65 electors were present. Forty agreed to make the land available, 16 voted against the proposal and the remainder declined to vote. On the same day the council of the band passed a resolution agreeing to a transfer of a 100-foot road allowance through Saugeen Indian reserve No. 29 without payment of compensation. This was all that was required under section 35 of the Indian Act, and the right of way for the road was conveyed to the province of Ontario by order in council.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 137-Mr. Dumas:
For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of those employed, the period of employment and the amount paid to each person, in connection with the reconstruction, during 1959, of a wharf located on the west bank of the Malartic river, range 4, in the township of Malartic, Quebec.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: At the time the hon. member for Villeneuve was good enough to withdraw this motion previously, the matter was being
investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Had the investigation not led to anything I would have been happy to give the hon. member the information he desired, but in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that criminal prosecutions are about to be instituted, you can appreciate that it would prejudice the case of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to disclose any information at this time. I would ask the hon. member to be good enough to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the minister has said, I should like this motion to stand for the time being.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.
Motion stands.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I regret that I was not able to give him notice because the report was brought to my attention just as I was coming into the chamber. Has the minister any comment to make on the report which has appeared in the press this morning to the effect that Chancellor Adenauer and President de Gaulle have had conversations during which they agreed on the desirability of the reforming of NATO?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no reports to that effect.


TIBET-REPORT CHARGING PRACTICE OF GENOCIDE BY COMMUNIST CHINA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Further to the report of the international commission of jurists, under which communist China was found guilty of genocide toward Tibet, what is the Canadian government's attitude as a party to the convention on genocide of December 9, 1948?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: The report referred to by the hon. member was issued by a legal inquiry committee of the international commission of jurists, a non-governmental and independent body. Although the report is, therefore, unofficial, its conclusions appeared to be based on as full information as can be gathered on Tibet in present circumstances.
The Canadian government's attitude is quite clear. Hon. members will recall that at the last session of the general assembly of the United Nations, Canada voted in favour of a resolution which called for respect for the fundamental rights of the Tibetan people.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister bring the house up to date on the progress that is being made in providing Canadian assistance to the Congo; in particular, would the Prime Minister say whether Canada intends to make any additional food supplies available?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything to be added to what I said two days ago when I spoke on this question. There is nothing further in that connection that I know of, and when any matters arise which make necessary or appropriate further action the house will be advised. At the moment there is nothing.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister taken the necessary steps to notify all departments of government concerned that hospital premiums have been abolished in New Brunswick as from July 23, and that the deductions from salaries of federal employees in New Brunswick to cover such premiums should be discontinued?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I have not given any such instructions, Mr. Speaker.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question. Since some federal employees in New Brunswick are complaining that deductions are still
[Mr. Allard.1

being made on a plan that does not exist any more, will the minister take the necessary steps?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the observations explicit in the hon. member's question will have to be examined, Mr. Speaker, but I will look into the matter.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Triniiy-Concepiion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a report that a Russian armada of 160 ships of up to 14,000 tons, with crews totalling about 25,000, has shown up this year off Newfoundland, ostensibly for fishing? More Russians than Newfoundlanders are in the area. If so, has the minister any comment to make?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the report referred to and I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The report appears to be substantially correct. There is indeed a very large Russian fleet of fishing vessels, supply ships and factory ships, totalling possibly 160, operating between 100 and 150 miles off the northeast coast of Newfoundland. To the best of our knowledge they are fishing for rose-fish. I must point out, of course, that this fleet is not in or near our territorial waters.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koofenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning a matter that comes under that department. Can the parliamentary secretary inform the house whether his minister or he has received correspondence from the Canadian library association expressing dismay at the failure of the government to commence construction of the national library building, and urging the inclusion of an item in next year's estimates for this purpose?


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will have to take the question as notice and get the information for the hon. member.

(Translation):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
(Page 7457)
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton).
In looking over Monday's paper, I recognized a well known figure who is credited with an article entitled:
Hamilton-I have no sympathy for letter carriers who complain about salaries.
Does the Postmaster General care to make any comment on this statement and explain whether he intends to run his department by humiliating and provoking all his employees?
(Text):


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, when I was in Halifax on Sunday a member of the press asked me about a press report that an official of the letter carriers association had said that they were most dissatisfied with their salaries and were considering strike action or a work stoppage. I said at that time, and I repeat, that I have no sympathy whatsoever for that sort of attitude. In my view it is unreasonable, unfair and irresponsible in the light of the conditions which exist today, because, with some 25,000 civil service employees in the department, substantial increases for well over half were announced early last month.
These increases were the largest ever announced in the history of the department. They averaged 12| per cent, while in the period since the last increase the cost of living index has gone up only 6J per cent. The result is that practically all those whose salaries were increased are now earning over $4,000 a year. I think that is exceptionally fair and reasonable treatment. Under these circumstances I think those who complain about salary treatment have no case whatsoever.
According to the report to which the hon. member referred, the association officials were complaining that the increases were not large enough and that certain classes had not yet been granted increases. My understanding of the situation is that the Minister of Finance announced several months ago that all salary classes would be reviewed, and that whatever salary increases were decided upon would be implemented as recommendations were received. With 150,000 employees in hundreds of classes, that process takes time, and there must always be those classes which will be reviewed first and those that will follow. The
Inquiries of the Ministry only alternative to this process is a general over-all increase of salaries at the same time, and to this the association itself has objected.
What the association which made the observations to which the hon. member refers were arguing for, and he can support them if he so desires, was that the government should not announce and approve increases as recommendations come forward but should hold all increases until they could be announced together. I do not believe that would be a popular policy, because it would hold up salary increases for many categories. I have confidence in the Minister of Finance and in the process of salary adjustments which is being followed at the present time. I understand that these association officials feel they must have some criticism to make, no matter how unreasonable they may be at times, but I do not believe their present criticisms are justified.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
According to the same article, the minister is reported to have said that the government is only following instructions from the civil service commission. If that is the case, how can the minister know that further salary increases will be granted? How can he take credit for granting salary increases and dare interfere in the affairs of a department other than his own, and this, to the prejudice of his own employees?


Mr. Johnson:: A fine speech.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the reply was rather extended, but certainly the supplementary question is in the nature of an argument and I think should not be pursued.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: -the supplementary question which was asked by the hon. member for St. Denis was provoked by the length of the reply made by the Postmaster General. While the rules are quite clear, sir, that the question should be short and the reply equally short, the minister himself went beyond the bounds of the rule. I submit to you with deference, sir, that the hon. member for St. Denis should be allowed to ask the question which arose out of the reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not object to the hon. member asking a further question. I do object to a question which is argumentative, in the sense that it undertakes to introduce a controversial aspect of the matter.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Azellus Denis: I was just asking the Postmaster General how it is that he knows about future increases which are not under his jurisdiction. I should like to know how he could have any knowledge of a matter which does not come under his jurisdiction.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: can answer that very simply. If the hon. member had been listening to my first answer he would have found it in there. The Minister of Finance stated some months ago that he expected all salaries would be reviewed by the end of this summer, and it was on that basis that I made the observation.
While I am on my feet, may 1 say that I am sure the hon. member would be interested in knowing that yesterday two men were arrested and charged with respect to the highway theft about which he complained last week.


Azellus Denis: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the Postmaster General whether those employees who are classified as casual and who work irregularly in the Montreal office have received these increases, as well as those in the flying squad?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No,
Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge these classes have not yet had their increases. I can understand the interest of the hon. member, because probably he will be looking for such a job very shortly.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OP DEPUTY MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say when he expects to name a deputy minister for the Department of National Defence?


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot give the exact date.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry, but I could not hear the answer. The Prime Minister will have to speak up, he is a little weak this morning.


John George Diefenbaker: I sometimes have to use the hearing appliance, too. I am unable as yet to say the exact date.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. I wonder if the Prime Minister would say whether he believes it is in the public interest to allow a senior civilian and administrative post in a department which is spending a quarter of the national budget-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is seeking to comment rather than to give information.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it a fact that new rainmaking equipment is being tested by the officials of his department in the vicinity of Latulipe in the county of Temiscamingue? Is the minister aware that in a number of cases this rainmaking equipment is ruining the crops of the farmers in the area?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: No, I am not aware of that.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister inquire into the case of a farmer whose name is Leandre Brassard, who has complained to the Leader of the Opposition that this rainmaking equipment is causing considerable damage to his crops?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that matter.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: On Monday the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) inquired regarding reports of a United States marine pilot operating in the purely Canadian section of the St. Lawrence river between Montreal and Cornwall.
It is not legal for a United States pilot to operate in the purely Canadian section of the river below Cornwall and St. Regis, and my department is looking into the report which the hon. member has mentioned in this connection, as well as certain other reports that have reached us about alleged instances in which this has taken place. It is also our intention to discuss methods of enforcement in this connection with the United States authorities in the near future.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. In reply to the first question the minister said, if I understood him, that it was not legal for a United States pilot to operate in purely Canadian waters, and that this matter was being discussed with the United States authorities. Does not the Canada Shipping Act provide for certain penalties in this case?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter that it would be well to work out with

the United States authorities, because this type of operation is relatively new. I feel sure the hon. member will agree that if these matters can be worked out in a satisfactory manner between the two governments, that is the best way of doing it.


Lionel Chevrier: Is that the new policy of standing up to the United States?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) inquired whether the Canadian National Railways had surplus locomotives which they would be prepared to dispose of without charge, and if not what disposition is being made of such locomotives.
The management advise me that the railway has a limited number of surplus steam locomotives intact awaiting disposition. The present practice in disposing of these locomotives is to obtain the maximum sale price either through selling intact or cutting up for sale as scrap metal.
If the Fort William junior chamber of commerce wishes to follow the matter up, the hon. member might like to suggest that they communicate with Mr. E. A. Bromley, vicepresident, purchases and stores, Canadian National Railways, Montreal, on the question of a purchase price.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is the
the Minister of Transport in a position to report on the investigation asked for in this house on July 23 by members of the opposition, following the unfortunate incident at Great Bear lake where two female employees of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys have been reported missing since July 20?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not a report on that accident as yet.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have any steps been taken by the minister's department to investigate this matter?


George Harris Hees: I believe that my department would be investigating this matter in the normal course of events.
79951-0-471
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Perhaps the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys could give a report to the house?


Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I have no final report. In any case, the investigation is still going on. A few days ago we authorized the president of the Arctic Institute of North America, Mr. Marsden, to assist the R.C.M.P. in starting the investigation and to get more details.
We are almost convinced that the two girls have been drowned, but we want to be sure about that and to collect the facts. When I get the final report from the R.C.M.P. I will report to the house. At the same time an investigation will be asked by the Department of Transport.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschafelefs (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Has the minister any report to make on a question I asked 10 days ago about counterfeit $10 bills and, if so, will he take into consideration the press report in yesterday's edition of the Montreal Star stating that a new wave of phony bills is hitting Montreal?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Yes. I regret that I did not give the hon. member this reply before. I was in a position to have done so yesterday or the day before, but I overlooked the necessity. I should like to inform him now that I have been advised by the R.C.M.P. that they raided a printing shop in Ontario and seized in the shop $15,000 in counterfeit Canadian bills plus counterfeit plates and a printing press and photographic equipment. They also apprehended the operator of the shop. I am further advised that the information obtained should lead to the arrest of another person. In addition, a man was recently arrested in Quebec city and $8,050 in counterfeit bills was found in his possession. In addition to this result, the R.C.M.P. is still carrying on its investigation into this matter.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: In view of the importance of this situation, is the minister contemplating any amendment to the civil code in order to cope with the situation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I assume the hon. member means amendments to the Criminal Code. No,
I am not contemplating any amendment to the Criminal Code at the moment. Nothing has been suggested to me by a way of an amendment which would make the task of dealing with counterfeiters easier, but if there
7460	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry should be such suggestions made I will be glad to give the matter serious consideration. I think the problem remains one of enforcement. These are well organized and skilful operators. I think in general our police are to be congratulated on keeping the thing within the bounds they have. This is, of course, an area in which co-operation among police forces at all levels is essential for success.



ALLEGED PERJURY IN DIVORCE CASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I wish to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has anything further to report on the Eccles case, which was referred to him by the miscellaneous private bills committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In this connection I referred the matter, as I indicated to the house I intended to do, to the chairman of the Senate committee to see whether that committee felt it should take any action itself, because any abuse of the procedure of parliament would appear to have taken place primarily before the Senate committee and any perjury involved would appear to have taken place there, if in fact perjury was committed.
I received yesterday a reply from the chairman of the Senate committee indicating that that committee was not concerned to take any action or to make any further investigation but was content to leave the whole matter in the hands of the Minister of Justice. I have therefore given instructions that the transcript of the evidence both in our private bills committee and in the Senate committee be examined, and any evidence which appears to indicate offences against the Criminal Code be marked so that I may be in a position to draw it to the attention of the attorneys general concerned.



ACREAGE PAYMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Prime Minister, who is relaxed and serene and most agreeable this morning, if before the hon. member for Assiniboia leaves for the west he could announce the government's policy with regard to acreage payments so that the hon. member for Assiniboia can reannounce it at the C.C.F. convention next week?


John George Diefenbaker: This is the first actual example of that co-operation which has always prevailed


between the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Assiniboia. We have always suspected that; now we know. I realize the solicitude of the hon. gentleman in the achieving of the ambitions of the hon. member for Assiniboia, and I am sure anything that any of us over here can do to assure the attainment of those ambitions by him will be done.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, August 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-79, to provide for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms- Mr. Diefenbaker-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, last evening in speaking to this particular amendment the Prime Minister ranged far and wide over the bill and over the history of recent years. Among other things he chided some of us on this side for not having supported his efforts over the years to bring about a bill of this kind. That was not too easy to do during those years, because the Prime Minister's own views in regard to the nature of such a bill changed from year to year, and it was never quite certain at any one time what kind of bill or indeed what kind of idea for a bill of rights the Prime Minister had in mind.
The Prime Minister made great play last night about the attitude of the government to the universal declaration of rights which in one of its provisions, is the foundation of this amendment. Indeed, we admit that the words of this amendment are to be found in the universal declaration of human rights. The words of some of our other amendments come from that document as well. Indeed, the words of one of the provisions put forward by the government were originally taken, in substance at least, from the universal declaration of rights.
In discussing the background of this amendment last night the Prime Minister vigorously attacked the record of the previous government for having done nothing over the years in regard to this declaration. In doing so I claim that he misrepresented that record. Before this universal declaration was signed by the representative of the Canadian government in 1948 it was discussed at some length with the provinces, because there were matters in it which affected provincial jurisdiction. In this regard it is to be distinguished from a proposed international bill of rights which has been under discussion for many years and which could not have been accepted

by the government, as we saw it at that time, even if it had been up for acceptance, because as a bill it would have had some provisions which were outside the federal jurisdiction.
However, the declaration was discussed very widely, and it was signed. The Prime Minister has said more than once, and most recently last night, and he keeps on saying that the document never received consideration in this parliament. Perhaps the Prime Minister has forgotten that in two successive sessions in 1947 and 1948, this draft declaration of human rights was considered by a joint committee of the house and the Senate. It was carefully considered. I think there were 20 meetings held by this committee. The Prime Minister himself was a member of that committee. I have looked up the records of the committee and the records of attendance at its sittings as well. Therefore to say that this parliament never had an opportunity to consider that declaration of human rights is not in accordance with the facts.
The Prime Minister may also recall that in 1950 there was a Senate committee which went into the whole question of a bill of rights, including the declaration of rights, and that that Senate committee did not recommend a bill of rights because after taking a great deal of evidence it decided that was not the best course to follow. Incidentally, that committee was under the chairmanship of a man to whom the Prime Minister rightly paid great credit for his work in this field, Senator Roebuck. The committee decided that there should be something which in their view would be more suitable than a bill of rights, a declaration of Canadian rights. In that declaration they included rights dealing with social and economic matters.
Meanwhile, over all these years the declaration of human rights could have been brought before the House of Commons at any time during any session by the Prime Minister or any of his colleagues. There were various ways by which that could have been done. There were a number of supply motions, any one of which could have been used to bring this matter to the attention of the house. The Prime Minister, who now chides the government of that day for doing absolutely nothing, took no action of that kind, nor did any of his colleagues take action at that time.
The Prime Minister has also had three years during which he has been responsible for the government of this country. During any of the sessions throughout those three years this declaration could have been brought before the House of Commons and we could have been asked to support it if the Prime Minister were really so interested and anxious to have it done. That declaration 79951-0-471J
Human Rights
could have been included in this bill. Approval of it could have been given in this bill if the Prime Minister so desired. No move of that kind was made, although this bill has been under consideration by the government for the past two or three years. Therefore this indignation at this time, in 1960, that so little action was taken in parliament about this declaration of human rights strikes me as being a shade synthetic.
Last evening the Prime Minister expressed his satirical satisfaction at the great transformation which, so he claimed, had taken place in the attitude of this party with respect to the question of human rights. There has been quite a transformation in the Prime Minister's own attitude which may be seen if you read the debates of 1947 and the discussions of 1948 and those which took place subsequently in this house on the question of a bill of rights.
One indication, however, of a lack of transformation in the Prime Minister's attitude, of his lack of willingness now to put into this bill before us something which in those days, he put forward as most desirable, an indication of his apparent inability to do now what he then proposed to have done, is the refusal of the government to accept this very amendment. We are not asking the Prime Minister to change his mind in this regard; we are asking the Prime Minister to put in this bill what he claimed years ago and over the years should be done, namely to put some clauses in the bill of rights to deal with social matters.
So that it will be quite clear what I am talking about, I will repeat what the Prime Minister said in this house on May 16, 1947, when the question of a bill of rights was being discussed. This is what he said as reported at page 3152 of Hansard:
Those were the political freedoms that I would have placed in a bill of rights. In addition to those, there would, of course, be social freedoms, if I may call them such, assuring educational, property and social security rights.
We are giving the Prime Minister and the government an opportunity to do now in this bill what they claimed as far back as 1947 should be done. That is the nature of this amendment, and it will be the nature of subsequent amendments on this subject.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not perfectly obvious that the inclusion of educational rights would require the consent of the provinces if it were to be made effective?

Human Rights


Lester Bowles Pearson: Indeed it would, Mr. Chairman, and that is why the Prime Minister should not have talked so loosely about it in 1947; but I am now talking about social security measures and not education in any way, shape or form in respect of the right of the provinces at all. I am asking the Prime Minister now to accept an amendment which will put some social security rights in this bill of rights, something that he advocated in those days. Therefore I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the government will be happy and relieved to accept this amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on the points made by the Leader of the Opposition, I think there are just two matters that should be replied to briefly to place things in their proper perspective. It is quite true that in 1947 the Prime Minister did suggest that the kind of bill of rights that he then had in mind should contain provision for educational and social security matters, and I think there was one other provision.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Educational and property rights.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It will be recalled, as has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition himself, that at that time the Prime Minister's suggestion was also for the reference of such a bill to the Supreme Court of Canada to see just what the parliament of Canada could include properly in such a bill. In other words the Prime Minister recognized then, as he recognizes now, that a bill of rights on that basis would probably require a reference to see whether this field, and if so, how much in this field, should be included in a federal legislative enactment.
What has been made perfectly clear over and over again is that since assuming office, and on considering all the matters now applicable and the probability or possibility of obtaining provincial consent to that kind of enactment, we came to the conclusion that at the present time, as a first step, it would be better to offer a bill of rights confined exclusively to the federal field of legislative competence.
It is for that reason in part that the bill of rights has been drawn in its present form without any reference to, or inclusion of, that kind of subject matter.
There is no secret about that. We are not in the least hesitant to admit that this was our intention. Upon reflection our intention is to take this first step to set the federal house in order in the field of bills of rights, and then at the appropriate time to initiate discussions with the provinces to see what further steps can be taken to bring about a bill to rights which will cover the whole field of those rights which it is desired to have

included in a bill of rights applying to all jurisdictions in Canada. This is a perfectly simple explanation of why the present bill does not contain-and one good reason why it does not contain-the provisions the Prime Minister referred to in the quotation placed on the record.
Now, with regard to those provisions contained in the universal declaration of human rights which my hon. friends opposite are constantly urging us to incorporate in the bill, again what the Leader of the Opposition has just said establishes and confirms the soundness of our judgment in saying that they should not be incorporated in the present bill. He himself has pointed out that when that declaration was referred to a committee of parliament, the finding of the committee was that much which was contained in it had to do with the field of provincial legislative competence.
This confirms what I have been saying over and over again in this committee and what I said in the special committee. It was for that reason that my hon. friends opposite, when they formed the government, were so hesitant, to use the words used by the Leader of the Opposition, to submit it to parliament in any way; and when they did, what they did was to refer it to a parliamentary committee. They did not refer it for adoption by a formal resolution, as I recall. They were concerned because they recognized that it embraced things which are in the provincial field of jurisdiction.
That is one of the reasons I urged in the special committee, and I have been constantly urging here, that makes it undesirable and unsuitable to attempt to write into this federal bill of rights so many of the things which are contained in the universal declaration, because to do so would inevitably and inescapably take our bill of rights outside the federal field of competence and bring it into a field where it might well fail because the courts would hold that we are legislating with respect to matters which are assigned exclusively to the provinces. Certainly it would be held that we were legislating in most of those fields where the limits of our jurisdiction are by no means clear.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, what the Leader of the Opposition has just said in my submission confirms in two precise and important respects the soundness of the stand we have taken, that those provisions of the universal declaration are not suitable to be included in a bill of rights which is designed to be a bill entirely within the federal field of competence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the observations of the Minister of Justice reflect the contradiction between the position

taken by the Prime Minister and that taken by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. The Minister of Justice, of course, passed over the suggestion made by the Prime Minister when he spoke about these matters, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out a few moments ago. The then hon. member for Prince Albert had proposed that there should be included in a bill of rights the kind of social welfare objectives set out in the amendment before the committee at the present time, and if there were any doubt on the matter the Supreme Court of Canada should be asked, he proposed, for an advisory opinion under a reference provided for by the Supreme Court Act.
This course is not being followed by the government at the present time. If the government had any doubt whether those kinds of rights could be included, the Prime Minister had a very good precedent; that is the proposal which he himself made that the Supreme Court of Canada ought to be asked for an advisory opinion. Therefore the observations made by the Minister of Justice do not really touch the point because he assumes, as the Prime Minister has, that what we are asking for in this amendment is something clearly outside the competence of parliament. They are two observations that must be made in consequence.
In the first place, it is clear that the intention of parliament is not to touch on matters that are outside section 91 of the British North America Act; and to make that clear, notwithstanding statements made in the debate which will not be considered by the courts in interpretation, we have proposed in the preamble a clear qualification as to the federal powers. And, as I indicated last night, again so there will be no doubt we propose later on, in the operative part of the bill, to establish clearly by provisions to be incorporated that this act has only to do with matters that come within the federal competence.
But what I want to point out as to this particular amendment is that hon. gentlemen are assuming that the federal parliament has no power within section 91 to provide for social welfare legislation. Last night the Prime Minister spoke of our conversion, and then he went on to point out how happy he was at that process of association with ideas which he claims belong to him alone. We must not forget, of course, that the real author of this bill in its basic form is not the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice but Mr. Driedger, who sits in front of the minister and who was referred to by the Minister of Justice as the author of the bill
Human Rights
in its original form. I am not making an announcement that is being made for the first time.
But while the Prime Minister says that this conversion has taken place, he will not forget that the very thing we are asking for in this amendment was in very large measure undertaken by the administration which he criticized last night. The social security provisions we now have in Canada, passed by this house, involving family allowances, old age pensions, old age security, old age assistance, blindness allowances, disability pensions, the veterans charter and unemployment insurance, are all measures placed on the statute books of Canada by a Liberal administration. So it lies in our mouths, having taken the initiative in this field, to urge the government to recognize the validity of the amendment and to provide this right within the limits set out in the constitution, so far as the division of powers is concerned.
So I would hope that with this explanation, and particularly that of the Leader of the Opposition, there can be no doubt. The Prime Minister, as the Leader of the Opposition said, had no doubt about the right to include this kind of provision in a bill of rights; and because it is now recognized that we have passed all these social measures in this house, to the extent that these measures are within the ambit of federal power, how can the government take the position that this right must not be included because it is outside the competence of parliament, when it is clearly within it? I would remind the Prime Minister of what he suggested when he proposed in 1950 or thereabouts-I forget the exact date-that parliament should pass an act even though it might be of doubtful constitutional value, which would provide an argument to the federal government in the matter of disallowance. Mr. Ilsley dealt with that point, and suggested that it would be politically immoral for parliament to pass something knowing it to be unconstitutional, just as it was politically wrong for the Bennett administration between 1930 and 1935 to pass acts which Mr. Bennett, great lawyer that he was, certainly must have known were ultra vires of the parliament of Canada.
But that is not what the Prime Minister had in mind. He had no such doubt when, as the Leader of the Opposition reminded us, he said on May 16, 1947, as found on page 3152 of Hansard:
Those were the political freedoms that I would have placed in a bill of rights. In addition to those, would, of course, be social freedoms-
These are the words of the Prime Minister.
-if I may call them such, assuring educational, property and social security rights.

Human Rights
We are not asking for educational or property rights, but we are asking in this amendment for the recognition of social security rights, and we are using as one of our arguments the very recommendation made to parliament by the Prime Minister. For these reasons and those stated by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont and the Leader of the Opposition, I would hope there would be a recognition by the government that in this, the twentieth century, when the character of our industrial society is such as to make it urgent on the part of authority to provide for the needy through measures of this kind, this should be done, and that there will be no hesitation in doing so. In the light of these reasons I ask the Prime Minister to accept this amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, may I simply reiterate what the Minister of Justice has already said, that all these matters to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Essex East and the Leader of the Opposition are matters which, in the normal course of events, would be included if this bill of rights were to cover not only those matters of legislation that come within the federal responsibility but also within that of the provinces. So there would be no doubt on that question I asked the government of that day to submit a draft bill of rights to the Supreme Court of Canada with a view to having the question determined as to which of these freedoms or rights came within the jurisdiction and authority of the federal parliament.
They should not have been averse to doing that. As the hon. member for Essex East has mentioned, legislation was placed on the statute books during the period of office of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett covering unemployment insurance, minimum wages and various other matters.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All the social legislation was ultra vires.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member had, of course, a long and intimate friendship with the late Mr. Bennett, and he certainly would not suggest that Mr. Bennett was not sincere in having secured the opinion of the law officers of the crown to the effect-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend want me to deal with that?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, because of the friendship that existed between Mr. Bennett and the hon. member I know the hon. member would not suggest that Mr. Bennett was not sincere. Mr. Bennett, submitted the question of what was within the legislative authority of parliament, and legislation was passed on the basis of the

opinions given by the law officers of the crown. When the hon. member speaks of how directly the people of Canada owe a debt of gratitude for social security legislation to the party to which he belongs, may I point out that the very first thing the King administration did in 1935, having achieved office, was to have this legislation submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada-[DOT]


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: [DOT]-with a view to determining whether or not it was lawful.


Murdo William Martin: And the court decided that it was not.


John George Diefenbaker: A great deal of social security legislation was submitted. I have the various references here. There was a reference of the Natural Products Marketing Act. There was a reference of the question of legislative jurisdiction to enact the employment and social insurance act. Mr. Bennett brought in unemployment insurance, and that was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether or not parliament had the authority to pass such legislation, as were several other matters such as the weekly hours and industrial undertakings act, the limitation of hours act, and so on. I am not going through the entire ambit of those submissions.
However, I do point out this fact; that the Bennett government placed this legislation on the statute books, and when the King administration came into power the first thing they did was to submit the whole question to the Supreme Court of Canada to ascertain whether or not this beneficial legislation was within the legislative authority of parliament. At that time Mr. Bennett passed legislation which the courts subsequently decided was not within the legislative competence of parliament. The King administration appointed counsel, and it has never been denied that those counsel were directed not to argue in respect of the legislative competence of parliament to do these things but rather to take the reverse attitude.
I am going now to refer to the various statements I have made in this connection. My hon. friends opposite keep referring to what I stated on May 6, 1947, and I am going to read the entire reference to the suggestions I made at that time in connection with a bill of rights. On page 3152 of Hansard for that date we find this:
When this session opened I placed a resolution on the order paper; hut private members' days have been, to all intents and purposes, nonexistent this session, and the resolution will not

come up for discussion. I drafted a bill of rights in order to give a lead in this regard so that a committee would have something upon which to base discussion of the subject, but I did not introduce it because of my desire to secure joint action on the part of all parties in this house.
This was in 1947, and I did not endeavour to monopolize the subject, a position that could not be taken by any hon. member with a sense of responsibility, but tried to secure joint action and joint support. I continue the quotation:
This is not a political or partisan matter. It is one that, in order that success may be achieved, must have the support and co-operation of hon. members in all parts of this house and in the provinces of this dominion. The bill of rights I had drafted would have provided the assurance to Canadians, without regard to race or creed, of the following freedoms:
1.	Freedom of religion.
2.	Freedom of speech.
3.	Freedom of assembly.
4.	Freedom from wrongful interference by the state; and by that I mean freedom from unreasonable interference with person, home, reputation, activities and property of the individual.
5.	Freedom from arbitrary detention and in particular that habeas corpus shall not be suspended or abrogated except by parliament.
6.	The right of everyone to have his case determined without undue delay and assuring everyone required to give evidence before any tribunal or commission the preservation of all constitutional safeguards and, above all, the right of the individual to be represented by counsel. ..
7.	The right of equal protection for all against arbitrary discrimination in the provisions and applications of law because of race, religion or any other reason.
It was 13 years ago that these suggestions made in paragraphs 1 to 7 were outlined, and today they are embodied in this bill of rights, so there has not been any change of attitude. Then I went on to say this:
Those were the political freedoms that I would have placed in a bill of rights. In addition to those, there would, of course, be social freedoms, if I may call them such, assuring educational, property and social security rights.
Education is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and property within a province is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the province. Then I went on to advocate that there should be a submission to the Supreme Court of Canada


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Prime Minister a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Just let me conclude this point, and then I will give an answer. In 1952, on March 24, at page 714, I moved a resolution and I should like again to point out the elements of that resolution. It reads as follows:
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:
Human Rights
Today radio is not included, because since then freedom of the press has been defined as including freedom of the means of expression through the instrumentality of the radio. I continue to read:
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.
Then I said this as part of that motion:
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.
There was a considerable amount of discussion on this motion, and finally Mr. Harris, then the minister of citizenship and immigration, moved the adjournment of the debate. He pointed out that the minister of justice was most anxious to take part in that debate, and the result was that the yeas and nays were called and with the government members voting solidly, the matter was blocked so far as that session was concerned.
I am not going to review all the other examples of similar motions which I moved on other occasions. In other words, sir, everything that is embodied today in the bill of rights now before this committee was, in general and even in particular, advocated by me throughout the years in the form of motions and amendments. I even went further than that and on March 24, 1952, moved a motion which I think I ought to place on the record as well in order to answer the arguments which are being advanced. On that date, after introducing the resolution, I decided to bring before the house a draft declaration. I did that at page 719 of Hansard for that year, and I think it is well to have this recorded. It reads:
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 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

Human Rights
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.
Finally article 11, and these were all of the articles:
Article 11
The above articles shall not be deemed to abridge or exclude any rights or freedoms to which any person is otherwise entitled.
I simply point out this fact, that the suggested bills of rights that I brought before the house covered those political and constitutional rights. In so far as the rights of

education or property within the province were concerned, those were matters which would naturally be included in any bill of rights national in scope, providing the provinces were willing to abrogate or permit any control over their exclusive jurisdiction in this regard.
I simply point out that fact, and I have nothing to withdraw through those years in what I advanced to the house; for all the things that are embodied in those successive resolutions, motions or draft bills of rights are today embodied in the one now before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the members of this group have listened with great interest to the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister, the member for Essex East and other members of the official opposition with respect to this amendment.
I rise to state briefly the position of this party with respect to the amendment. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that this group has always stood for principles and the proposals of the order mentioned in this amendment. Our record in that respect is untarnished and unblemished; in fact we are almost above the battle.
However, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Essex East make his eloquent argument in support of his amendment. Then when I thought of the attitude of the previous government toward giving effect to the declaration of human rights adopted by the human rights commission, and the Liberal government's concern at that time with provincial rights, responsibilities and jurisdictions. Then I perused Hansard of recent years and noted the references therein to this question which has been of interest to this house for a number of years, in which debates the Prime Minister and other members have taken an active part. Thus on recollection, Mr. Chairman, I cannot but come to the opinion that there is a measure of hypocrisy on the part of the official opposition in the introduction of this amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is also a degree of humbug and there is a complete loss of memory, temporarily, as to the history of the past with respect to this question. When we note the attitude of the previous government to these questions that I have mentioned, and then see the official opposition introducing what I would term simply plagiarised versions of the United Nations declaration of human rights, I cannot but help come to that conclusion. I do rise to say this because our record is untarnished and unblemished,

and we have always stood for these principles, whether we were in office or out of office.
We in this group intend to support this amendment in all sincerity, because our conscience is clear as to what we have said and done in the years gone by.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman who has just spoken talked about hypocrisy and humbug, and said that the record of his party is untarnished in respect of this matter now before the committee. I would ask the hon. gentleman, who has asserted such virtue in this matter on behalf of his party, what was their record when this question was before the special committee? When the fight was taken up in the special committee for the inclusion of these economic rights in this bill, what was their record there? It was no record at all; they took no part in the discussion. They did not turn up, yet they went on last night, at the beginning of the committee of the whole, to get an amendment at once which they had not fought for or even introduced in the standing committee at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should explain that the member for Assiniboia was appointed to that committee-


Lester Bowles Pearson: He was not there.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He was only able to attend a few meetings, owing to his required attendance at other very important occasions and events.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, as a member of that committee I was a little surprised when I heard the hon. member for Kootenay West speak. He is a gentleman and we all have high respect for him, but as he ages and mellows he seems to become more and more Tory-minded in every particular.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that the reaction to the hon. member's remarks brings him comfort and satisfaction; comfort from the Tory benches, who welcome this continual exhibition of support that he gives day by day, one day to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and now to the Prime Minister. If I did not know the hon. gentleman I would be inclined to think that as he gets older he is hoping to leave this house and enjoy the security and comfort of another place, and that the way to achieve this he 79951-0-472
Human Rights
seems to think is by convincing hon. gentlemen opposite that he is closer and closer to their ideology.


An hon. Member:: At least we have an ideology.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The fact is that notwithstanding what may be the hon. gentleman's sincerity in these matters, when these amendments involving social security and the other rights contained in the declaration of human rights were being discussed in the committee, there was not one representative of the C.C.F. party present. I recognize that the temporary leader, who hopes to acquire permanency in that office, has great obligations; but there was no reason, particularly in view of the concern felt for these matters among the C.C.F. party, why the hon. member for Kootenay West could not have come in and shown at least an academic interest. The hon. member for Greenwood, who has long been a champion of civil liberties, was not a member of this committee, but so important did he feel this subject to be that he came in on his own, and so perspicacious were his remarks that we created him amicus curiae and gave him the right to put questions to the witnesses.
I hope that since the C.C.F. has not taken any initiative whatever in this respect it will not put obstacles in our path in seeking to obtain recognition by this reactionary government of the kind of rights in the realm of social welfare needed in the twentieth century.
I turn now to some remarks made by the Prime Minister as to the importance of history. It is important that history be correctly stated. If the words of the Prime Minister should go unchallenged they will one day be quoted by-what is the name of the gentleman in Bracken House?-Mr. Grosart as a statement of historical fact. Unless they are challenged-and even that does not preclude the possibility of their being asserted as historical fact-that will be the case, and one must do what one can to protect oneself against the ingenuity of Mr. Grosart.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are really worried about him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not worried at all, but I have such a love of history that I wish to have the record correctly stated. The Prime Minister seeks to disarm me by referring, I think for the third time, to the fact that as a young man I had the privilege of knowing Mr. Bennett. I hope he does not wish to imply by that suggestion that at that time I shared Conservative opinions. I assure the right hon. gentleman that unlike the Prime

Human Rights
Minister I was born a Liberal, I continued a Liberal and have always been a Liberal.


An hon. Member:: Born blind and stayed blind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At one time the Prime Minister did have Liberal propensities and Liberal convictions, for which I congratulate him. The fact that I did know Mr. Bennett does not have anything to do in any way with the facts as misstated by the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Greenwood knows this better than any man in this house, because it was in his house that I first saw the so-called new deal legislation which was put forward by the Conservative party in the dying days of office, in 1934 and 1935; legislation which had been prepared by Mr. Bill Herridge of Ottawa; legislation which was modelled on the Roosevelt new deal and legislation which on the face of it was so obviously ultra vires as to make even those who were non-legal recognize its clearly unconstitutional nature.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? If it were so clear, how is it that Chief Justice Duff and Mr. Justice Davis in the Supreme Court of Canada held that unemployment insurance was within the jurisdiction of the federal government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The applause of hon. members opposite does not settle a legal point. The fact is that Chief Justice Duff never made such an assertion. The Prime Minister must contain himself. He must be serene. He has been very calm all morning, and I do not want him to lose that calm. What happened was this. Having gone through four years of office, during those dying days they proposed to resolve their problems by blasting their way into the markets of the world-


An hon. Member:: That had nothing to do with it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has everything to do with it, if the hon. member would try to follow though that may be difficult. Mr. Bennett put forward certain new deal legislation including proposals for unemployment insurance. Now, unemployment insurance requires the imposition, by the legislative body that enacts it, of levies on employers and individuals by way of compulsory contributions. It was clearly ultra vires of this parliament to propose such a measure, because it clearly came within the provisions of section 92 of the British North America Act. Mr. King and the Liberal members of that day, than whom no one has done more for social welfare-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -pointed out to the government of the day that the legislation was clearly ultra vires. The Prime Minister asks me whether I say that Mr. Bennett was not sincere. I say to the Prime Minister that Mr. Bennett at that time knew that the legislation could not stand the rigours of the law; and if the Prime Minister wants to know why I say this, Mr. Bennett acknowledged that very fact to me in this very house.


An hon. Member:: Where is your proof.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He did, and it is so clear, because it went to the supreme court. The Liberals came back in 1935, as we are coming back in 1961 or 1962, and the first thing the government did-Mr. Chairman, I call attention to the continuous obligation of hon. gentlemen to my left who, while we are discussing a bill of rights-let this be on the record-seek to obstruct us in our duties of opposition.
I say the Liberal government referred the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. The supreme court gave a judgment which was obvious, namely that these social welfare matters were all ultra vires. That is the record. Thus Mr. Bennett, fine and great Canadian citizen that he was, cannot go down in history as the author of legislation in the field of social welfare, because the Supreme Court of Canada said that the legislation he had introduced was outside the competence of parliament, and I say that when it was introduced the government knew it was outside that competence. The hon. member for Greenwood knows whereof I speak.
What did the Liberal government then do? Realizing that it could not pass such a measure without a constitutional amendment, they called the provinces together. There was difficulty in getting agreement, but that government was able in the course of four and a half years to get the provinces to agree to give the federal government the necessary power, by way of constitutional amendment in order to provide for unemployment insurance.


An hon. Member:: Just before an election.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was not just before an election. It was four years before an election.


An hon. Member:: What about the family allowance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to deal with family allowances, since the hon. member reminds me of it.


Lionel Chevrier: Your party has a bad record in that respect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, your party was opposed to family allowances. It opposed them, but as a result of the action taken by the Liberal government these were nevertheless placed in the statutes of Canada. The Unemployment Insurance Act was introduced by the then hon. member for Essex West, the late Hon. Norman McLarty, the minister of labour in the Mackenzie King government. I mention this because it stands as a monument to his efforts. Then followed all the other social welfare legislation.
The Prime Minister, I know, contrives, but there is no bit of contrivance he can possibly muster that will justify his saying that the Tory party at any time in history has put on the statute books of our country social welfare legislation that stood the test of law. Any social welfare legislation put on the statute books of this country by a Conservative government was by way of amendments to acts introduced by governments under Laurier, Mackenzie King and St. Laurent.
I want the Prime Minister to know that no one is trying to take away from him the extent of his authorship of this measure.


Mr. Small:: You are certainly working hard at it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister seems to protest too much. We know he brought forward a proposed bill of rights in the various years. We know all that. We know he recommended that in the bill of rights there should be provisions for social welfare, just as we are now proposing in this amendment. We know all that. But the Prime Minister's long dissertation, his apologia pro vita sua this morning, was intended only for one purpose, and that was to divert the attention of this committee from the amendment now before it. That amendment says that there should be in the bill of rights the following right:
The right of the individual to social security and his entitlement to realize the economic, social and cultural activities indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
That is the amendment before the committee. That is the very kind of amendment which the Prime Minister proposed himself. In the face of that, how can the Prime Minister refuse to accept this amendment when clearly it does not involve anything-


Mr. Spencer:: You are right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that affects the competence of this parliament. The hon. member for Essex West says I am right. The hon. member thereby disposes of the validity of the argument that family allowances, old age pensions, unemployment insurance- 79951-0-472J
Human Rights


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Day by day we
witness increasing efforts on the part of hon. members opposite-


Norman Leonard Spencer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member for Essex East surely must know that my remark had no relation to what he has now ascribed to it. As I recall the hon. member's words, he said that this amendment meant nothing, and with that statement I agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that this amendment means nothing-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You said it.


Some hon. Members:: That is what you said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, just let us see what the amendment says. It reads:
The right of the individual to social security and his entitlement to realize the economic, social and cultural activities indispensable for his dignity and ihe free development of his personality.


Mr. Morton:: You twisted it. Twister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, who moved this amendment, and all those in this party, a party that has done so much to bring about social welfare programs on federal account in Canada, say that this does mean something, and we ask the government to support the amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to unnecessarily prolong the discussion. I am sure the hon. member who has just spoken, if he was as correct with respect to other things as he was incorrect in stating what happened in the Supreme Court of Canada, would be very correct indeed. The record can only be complete if I place on the record what took place.
The hon. member stated that all the legislation of a social nature that Mr. Bennett introduced was declared ultra vires by the supreme court. Those were the hon. member's words only a few moments ago. It is easy to quote someone who is dead. Even the hon. gentleman will recognize that quoting the dead does not permit much challenge, and one does not have to be a seer in order to quote the dead.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ask the hon.
member for Greenwood.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member said that Mr. Bennett knew that this legislation was not within the competence of parliament. I pointed out to him that in the Supreme Court of Canada, in the matter of the reference as to the legislative jurisdiction to enact unemployment and social insurance, two

Human Rights
great judges out of five declared that the legislation was within the competence of parliament; the chief justice of Canada, Hon. Lyman Duff, and the late Mr. Justice Davis. Two outstanding judges of the five declared that it was within the competence of parliament. Apparently the hon. gentleman had forgotten that fact.
The hon. member also made the general reference that none of the legislation was held to be within the competence of parliament. The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, one of those measures, was found to be within the competence of parliament by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Natural Products Marketing Act-


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about social welfare measures?


John George Diefenbaker: -was unanimously declared to be ultra vires of the parliament of Canada. I thought I should point out these facts. The hon. gentleman cannot deny the competence, the capacity and the wisdom of the late Chief Justice Duff and the late Mr. Justice Davis, who declared that this was within the competence of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Deschatelets) negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 60.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, that clause 1 be amended as follows:
That the following paragraph, to be designated paragraph (c), be added after the present paragraph (b):
"The right of the individual to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection and that the remaining paragraphs be relettered accordingly."
This takes into account the declaration in the preamble that we are dealing with matters coming within federal competence. It takes into account the desirability of a minimum wage for those who are engaged in occupations that come within the clear competence of parliament. I refer the committee to the very excellent statement by the hon. member for Fort William at page 661 of the evidence, and to the observations made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's, which will be found at page 665. Then, to add to these precedents, I refer the committee to the observations made by the Prime Minister when he spoke in proposing his bill of rights.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I put it to you that this amendment seeks to revive a debate that has already taken place; it seeks to reopen a decision of the committee taken yesterday. I

think you will agree that this amendment is similar to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia, who sought to insert as paragraph (c) a provision covering the right to employment at fair and reasonable rates. I think that was the wording of the amendment. I submit to you that the intent and effect of that amendment were exactly the same as the amendment now proposed to be moved by the hon. member for Essex East, and I suggest to you, therefore, that under the rules this amendment is clearly out of order and any discussion of it would also be clearly out of order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I have listened to the points made by the Minister of Justice, and I would remind him that in this amendment we refer to just and favourable remuneration for each individual, assuring for himself and his family an existence which is worthy of human dignity. The minister will recall that in the amendment that was moved last night there was no reference at all to the fact that the family was involved; in this amendment the phrase goes much further. There is no similarity in any way with the amendment before us.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In reply to that, I now have before me the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia, and it proposed to add the words "employment at a fair and equitable remuneration". This suggested amendment is one which proposes to add the words, "the right of the individual to just and favourable remuneration". I submit to you that by no twist of any argument can it be urged that the words "fair and equitable remuneration" do not embrace exactly the same proposition as the words "just and favourable remuneration".
It is true that in the present amendment something else is dependent from the words "just and favourable remuneration", namely "ensuring for himself and his family", and so forth. But these words have no significance unless they depend on the earlier words "just and favourable remuneration"; therefore the core, the key of this amendment is these words, and they raise an issue exactly similar to the issue raised in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia. It is on these grounds that I submit the amendment is out of order.


The Chairman:: I must say that when the amendment was moved I immediately thought it might be contrary to citation 406 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. I may also say that not only does it repeat in part the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia, but it also has some resemblance to the amendment which has

just been defeated, which made reference to social security and social protection.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No connection at all.


Jacques Flynn: There is also the amendment which was moved yesterday concerning the rights of the family. I would think if this amendment were allowed it would include three amendments already defeated. For this reason I consider that the discussion on the amendment would simply be repetitive and that therefore the amendment is out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, I do not agree with your ruling but we accept it.


Mr. Badanai:: A small part of clause 1 of this bill sums up in a few short phrases the struggle and success of many years for the attainment of justice. Well, justice by itself is not enough. In the solemn coronation ceremony the symbols of justice and of mercy are borne side by side, and in the coronation oath the sovereign makes a solemn promise that justice shall always be tempered with mercy. The amendment I am about to propose is actually a recognition of the historic fact that within so short a time as the lives of many of the members of this house, justice has become also a matter of welfare.
The other point in respect to this amendment is nothing more than a recognition that we are all getting older every day, and that applies to all members on both sides of the house. We know that old age is a burden on many of us and inevitably calls for assistance, and we wish that burden to be lightened by a contribution from those who still possess full health and strength to bear it. That is the substance of the amendment which I am now moving, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's:
That clause 1 be amended as follows:
That the following paragraph, to be designated paragraph (c), be added after the present paragraph (b):
"The right of the individual to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his or her control."


Jacques Flynn: I think I should call it one o'clock, unless the committee desires to continue.


Lionel Chevrier: I suggest -that if the committee is willing we have no objection to continuing.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Is it the unanimous consent of the committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Human Rights


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice has been very reluctant to approve of any particularization in the clauses, outlining human rights in simple language. As an example, I should like to show that the New Zealand bill of rights contains the following clause which I wish to quote, namely article 22 of the universal declaration of human rights, which is fully particularized and which is an example for our own bill of rights:
"Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each state, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality."
This right is intimately associated with other provisions of the declaration-provisions which affirm the right to an adequate standard of living, to education, to choice of employment, and to rest and leisure. It is also linked closely with those provisions of the declaration which stipulate that the family is entitled to protection by society and the state, and that motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.
Therefore I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this particular amendment should be adopted.


Jacques Flynn: With all due deference to the hon. member, I must say I do not see any substantial difference between the amendment he is moving and the previous one or previous ones, if I may make myself clear. In the present case I must say I have no hesitation in ruling the amendment out of order.


Hubert Badanai: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, this specific amendment refers not only to unemployment but to sickness, disability, widowhood and old age. It is entirely different.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is all social security.


Jacques Flynn: The much wider term "social security" was used in the previous amendment or amendments, and as I see the matter I really have no hesitation in coming to a decision. I do not think I need any further advice. I rule the amendment out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Notwithstanding that you do not require advice I think I should like to give you some, because I feel you are so fundamentally wrong that the matter requires further consideration.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member will realize that I have rendered my decision.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am asking permission to speak to the point of order before you make your decision.


Jacques Flynn: I have made it.

Human Rights


Paul Joseph James Martin: Social security-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will you not allow me to make my argument?


Jacques Flynn: The Chair may allow you to make an argument only if the Chair thinks it is necessary. It is in the discretion of the Chair to listen to arguments as long as that is necessary to assist the Chair to reach a decision, but in this case I have already made my decision.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the Chairman saying he was justified in making this decision before we had an opportunity to put forward our argument in connection with the point of order?


Jacques Flynn: Yes. The Leader of the Opposition will understand that when the matter has already been debated, on the previous point of order, it is much easier for the Chair to render a second decision for the same reasons as in the previous case.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to resort to a procedure that is open to me, but if you do not allow me to make my argument I have no other recourse than to appeal your ruling.


An hon. Member:: Blackmail.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for Essex East will realize that the Chair cannot accept his argument.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I appeal your ruling.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
The question is an appeal to the house from a decision of the chairman of the committee of the whole as follows:
When Bill No. C-79 was being considered Mr. Badanai moved an amendment as follows:
"That the following paragraph, to be designated paragraph (c), be added after the present paragraph (b) :
'The right of the individual to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his or her control.'
And that the remaining paragraphs be relettered accordingly."
I ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it was repetitive and raised a question previously decided by the committee, whereupon Mr. Martin (Essex East) appealed to the house from this ruling.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal to the house from a ruling of the chairman of the committee of the whole as follows:
"When Bill No. C-79 was being considered Mr. Badanai moved an amendment as follows:
[The Chairman.]
"That the following paragraph, to be designated paragraph (c) be added after the present paragraph (b) :
'The right of the individual to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his or her control.'
And that the remaining paragraphs be relettered accordingly."
The chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it was repetitive and raised a question previously decided by the committee, whereupon Mr. Martin (Essex East) appealed to the house from this ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the ruling confirmed. It being the chair.	one o'clock I do now leave


Lionel Chevrier: It was agreed that we should
sit through the	lunch hour.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the house will now
resume the business which was interrupted by the appeal.	
And the house having resumed in committee:


Mr. Benidickson:: Interesting; minority	
rights on a bill of rights.


An hon. Member:: Two parties joined to-	
gether.


Mr. Cresiohl:: I should like to address some questions to the Minister of Justice and ask him to elaborate a little on the freedoms that are contained in clause 1. The minister was at some pains yesterday to explain to the committee that there was a difference between a right and a freedom; that a freedom did not mean there was a licence to do other things. Because his explanation of the difference between a right and a freedom was not quite clear I should like the hon. gentleman to make a statement to the committee-as soon as the minister is interested enough to listen I will carry on, because I am directing myself directly to the minister -and elaborate a little, if he can, on what he means by freedom of religion. If one has freedom of religion does one have also the right to practice religion according to one's


Edmund Davie Fulton: The question which the hon. member for Cartier has raised is, of course, a very important one, but it is a question in reply to which I know the hon. member would not expect me to be as completely categorical as the terms of his question might seem to require.
The phrase "freedom of religion" is a phrase which has been dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Saumur case specifically, and it is a phrase which to my mind connotes the right of a person to worship God in his own way and in accordance with his own conscience. If he does not happen to be one who shares the religious beliefs of the majority in the existence and supremacy of God, he may yet worship whatever supreme being he does believe in in his own way and in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience. This freedom exists to everyone provided that in exercising that right, that freedom, he does not improperly interfere with the rights and freedoms of other people. That is, I think, all I can say.
If any individual feels himself aggrieved in or deprived of that freedom, or unduly limited or prescribed in the exercise of that freedom which, of course, he must exercise in accordance with the law, then he has the right of recourse to the courts, which have dealt with the matter in the Saumur case, and the courts will decide whether his freedom has been improperly abridged.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Construction of law.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to deal now with clause 2, and in connection with that clause something which is perhaps legally the most important matter before us.
This bill, declaratory in form, is alleged by some proponents as having the effect of abrogating any existing measures inconsistent with the bill of rights. I have contended, as have other members-and I am not aware that there has been serious dispute concerning this statement-that to the extent this bill goes it is acceptable, but it is unacceptable because it does not abrogate legislation that is inconsistent with it.

Human Rights
The minister argued that the whole of clause 2 had the effect of a legal enactment. That was disputed by some members of the committee and by most of the witnesses who appeared before it, in particular Mr. David Mundell. If we are going to have a bill of rights, we in this Liberal party contend that we should have an effective bill of rights; one that has teeth in it; one that really will protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, and one that will be more than merely declaratory in consequence. We want a bill of rights that will see to it that any inconsistent legislation, which violates any of the provisions of the bill, will be inoperative.
We were referred by many hon. members on second reading to the Immigration Act, to the Lord's Day Act, to the Juvenile Delinquents Act, to the narcotic and drug control act and to other measures which are inconsistent with this bill and which will not cease to be operative in law by the mere passage of this bill in its present form. This was the view taken by the Canadian Bar Association, and by witnesses before the committee. This, of course, was the view taken by Mr. Bora Laskin, who unfortunately was not available as a witness but whose argumentation is so clear as to have warranted the support of all who commented upon it. For these reasons I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont:
That lines 11 to 18 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"The interpretation act is amended by adding thereto under the heading of "rules of construction" immediately before section 9 thereof, the following section as section 8(A).
'8(A) 1. Every act of the parliament of Canada and every order, rule and regulation thereunder in force at the commencement of this section, and all laws in Canada that are subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the parliament of Canada in force at the commencement of this section, are hereby amended by repealing or revoking them to the extent that any provision thereof would abrogate, abridge, or authorize the abrogration, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms declared to exist in Canada by the Canadian bill of rights.'
'2. No act of the parliament of Canada, passed hereafter, shall, unless it is otherwise expressly stated in it be interpreted to abrogate, abridge or infringe, or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms declared to exist in Canada by the Canadian bill of rights.'
'3. No act, order, rule or regulation or law mentioned in subsection 1, and, unless it is expressly otherwise stated therein, no act hereafter passed, shall be construed or have effect to.' "
Then we deal with the various clauses in the bill. We are face to face with an opportunity of testing exactly how far the government wants to go with this bill. If this bill is passed in its present form, we will be giving to the courts a wide opportunity of judicial

legislation, something that we should not do as a legislative body. Our function as a legislature is always to keep within our competence those matters, which are of a legislative character and to the courts we should give only the barest minimum opportunity of judicial law making. That is inherent in our whole system of government.
If we do not accept this amendment or one like it we will be doing what the Canadian Bar Association said we would be doing, that is giving an opportunity for an immeasurable amount of litigation as a result of the uncertainties which will be created. If this bill passes in its present form without this kind of amendment, there will be all sorts of legislation, inconsistent with this bill and which will have to come before parliament at some time, as well as many regulations and orders, all of them inconsistent.
There will be a task imposed on the Minister of Justice and the law officers of the crown the like of which will never have been placed on the Department of Justice. All that can be removed by making it clear in this bill that all acts now in existence and inconsistent with this measure are hereby abrogated. That is what is done in the amendment I have put forward. This is a vital matter.
There is standing in my name on the order paper a proposed amendment to the Expropriation Act. This amendment would cover that. If this bill pases in its present form the Expropriation Act will continue untouched as an abridgment-as it now is-of human rights and fundamental freedom, sought to be protected by this parliament.
Because this matter is important, I should like to refer the committee to what the Canadian Bar Association said on the matter, when Mr. Donald Mclnnes, dominion vice-president of the Canadian Bar Association and a very distinguished lawyer from Halifax, appeared before the committee. Beginning at the bottom of page 10 of Mr. Mclnnes' brief we find these words:
These questions point up the major problem of Interpretation Involved in section 3 of the proposed bill, which sets out rules of construction for legislation enacted by the parliament of Canada or under its authority.
I wish the minister would find it convenient to follow this, because this is really the heart of the whole matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister finds it convenient to follow and is following.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister. I just wanted to make sure because of its importance. I continue reading from the remarks of Mr. Mclnnes:
This section is open to two possible interpretations. One is that the words "construed and

applied" are intended to refer to the operative effect of federal legislation, so that an enactment would not be given an effect that denies or abridges any of the rights or freedoms or procedural protections enumerated, that is, that existing enactments would, in effect, be repealed in so far as they directly conflict with the bill of rights. The other interpretation is that a general declaration such as this will not affect existing provisions that are directly contradictory, for had parliament intended to repeal the contradictory provisions it would have done so explicitly. If the latter interpretation prevails, the bill of rights will not substantially modify existing law.
Listen to these words:
It would be a courageous judge who would rule the Lord's Day Act inoperative in a prosecution against a non-Christian member of our community who raised the bill of rights in his defence. Yet if the first interpretation is to prevail it can be argued that whipping and hanging, punishments imposed under our Criminal Code, are intended to be degrading or inhuman and that they must therefore not be imposed if this bill is to be effective. But parliament itself in debate has not yet determined to change our existing law on the imposition or form of capital punishment. Will the Immigration Act be limited by the bill of rights?
He went on to say:
Specific questions such as these illustrate the uncertainty about existing law to which section 3 of the bill gives rise. If Bill No. C-79 is enacted these and many other questions must be answered by the courts. There will be great latitude for judicial law-making. Lawyers generally oppose granting wide discretion to those who must apply the law, even the granting of discretion to our judiciary, for which we have the highest regard. It inevitably introduces, for some time at least, uncertainty into the law. If the bill in its present form is enacted, serious consideration should be given to a thorough review of existing legislation to amend those provisions that may conflict with the bill of rights, not only to restore certainty to the law but to assist the courts in applying this bill.
I submit that this statement by the Canadian Bar Association has to be fully considered. I would remind the committee that this statement by the association was supported by Mr. F. A. Brewin, a distinguished lawyer from Toronto, who will be known to the hon. member for Port Arthur, and this should arouse his sympathy, interest and support. Mr. Brewin said in effect in his communication to the chairman of the bill of rights committee:
The declaration by parliament in general terms could not be said to have the effect of repealing or amending any existing statute which might be thought to be inconsistent with it. Nor in my opinion would it have the effect of preventing parliament in future passing any enactment inconsistent with the bill of rights. The courts would be powerless to give effect to the general provisions of the bill of rights.
My final observation is this. The minister has accepted an amendment put forward by the hon. member for Fort William which suggested that one of the basic legal rights should be incorporated in the bill. It is now
Human Rights
incorporated in the bill. I refer to the right of presumption of innocence. We want to make that effective. We mean by that amendment that under the bill of rights an individual subject to the law of Canada is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, the onus resting on the person making the charge. For instance, under our Opium and Narcotic Drug Act there are situations where the presumption of guilt is on the accused. Unless we pass this amendment, or something like it, the putting into paragraph (f) of the presumption of innocence clause will not affect the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. According to the representations made by the bar association and by others, I believe if the minister wants this bill to be what the government says it is to be, and what this house has declared it should be, this amendment should be accepted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has produced a good many words in an attempt to support an amendment which has no validity and which would have no effect except to take the protection, which we seek to give, out of the bill of rights and put it in the Interpretation Act. This would be its first and only direct effect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why does the minister say that, when he knows perfectly well it cannot be so? It abrogates all acts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But my hon. friend does not realize, or refuses to realize, that the words we have in the present bill of rights override all other acts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend has apparently not read and considered or appreciated the words that are in the bill of rights since we amended it. May I point out to him also that much of what was written and said by the bar association and others was written and said before we amended clause 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend says, "Oh, no", but that is the fact. My hon. friend is fond of saying he is a great historian, but he is not. The fact is that we amended clause 3, as it then was, now clause 2 of the bill, in committee after much of what was said and written had been said and written.


Paul Joseph James Martin: After some.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a fact, Mr. Chairman, and all the assertions of my hon. friend cannot change the fact. I know he would like to change the fact by an assertion, but he cannot do that.

Human Rights


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister's mere assertion does not change the fact.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We now have a provision in clause 2 which we are considering which reads as follows:
Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an act of the parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the bill of rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to-
Then follow the subsequent words of clause 2. So it is now clear, even if it was not clear before, that this bill of rights operates as a law, as a rule of construction with respect to every statute of Canada, every law of Canada, unless that law of Canada expressly provides that it shall operate notwithstanding the bill of rights. Nothing could be clearer and nothing, in my opinion, could be more all-embracing; so that all that my hon. friend's amendment does in this respect is to take the protection which we seek to confer by the bill of rights out of the bill of rights and put it in the Interpretation Act, but it is nothing more than a rule of construction as he has drawn his amendment.
I was saying that it is a rule of construction, but it is a rule that he would transfer to the Interpretation Act instead of being left in the bill of rights. If my hon. friend seeks to hinge or to hang any particular argument on his use of the words "hereby amended by repealing or revoking them to the extent that any provision thereof would abrogate, abridge, or authorize the abrogation, abridgment" and so forth, I point out to him that that is a matter for interpretation and construction by the courts.
My hon. friend has not specified the acts which he says would be repealed or with respect to which he says certain provisions would be repealed or revoked by his amendment. The courts would have to interpret the acts that might come before them exactly as they would have to interpret the acts which would come before them by virtue of the provisions now contained in the bill of rights, and they would have to interpret those acts in the light of the words of the bill of rights to decide for themselves whether or not the provisions before them do operate so as to abridge, infringe, or authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared.
Let me suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite that if we were ourselves to embark upon a program of revision of the statutes, for example, to see what specific provisions of which

statutes were contrary to the bill of rights, no one could say what specific provisions were or were not actually repealed in whole or in part by the proposed amendments, any more than he could say what statutes would be affected by our present wording. It is only when the enactment comes before the courts that the court acts in accordance with the rule of interpretation laid down, whether it be in the bill of rights or in the proposed amendment, and decides whether or not the statute operates in such a way that it would be contrary to the bill of rights.
Now, what is the position if the courts say that? They find an express legislative enactment of this parliament, as our bill is drawn, which says that every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by the parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the bill of rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe. They will then have a look at the section or provision in question and say first, does this statute have within it an express declaration that it operates notwithstanding the bill of rights? If the answer to that question be no, it does not contain such an express provision, they would then look at the question of whether or not the provision of the statute which is before them does contravene the bill of rights. If the answer to that question be yes, then they would say, by virtue of the bill of rights we are directed not to give that statute or provision that construction, interpretation or application; in fact, we are directed not to apply it in a manner which will contravene the bill of rights.
Therefore the effect of the provision in our bill of rights is exactly the same as the effect of the provision in the proposed amendment, because under the proposed amendment the courts would have to go through exactly the same process. They would have to say first, is there an express provision in the statute before us that it operates notwithstanding the bill of rights? If the answer to that is no they would then say, Very well, we must then look at it to see whether or not the statute before us contains any provision which operates contrary to the bill of rights. If the answer to that question be yes, they would then interpret this section of the Interpretation Act embraced in the amendment in such a way as to have the effect of repealing or revoking the provisions of the statute before them.
So the process the courts would have to go through is exactly the same. They would have to interpret the statute before them from the point of view of whether or not it contains provisions that are contrary to the bill of rights and, if they found that it did, then by virtue of our bill of rights they would say, We are instructed not to apply

it in that way and accordingly we will not so apply it. If the only provision were the amendment now before us they would have to say, Well, this amendment says that we shall regard this provision of this statute as having been revoked or repealed.
In effect there is no difference whatsoever in the situation under the two alternatives with respect to the process that the courts would have to go through. The protection ultimately rests with the courts and the interpretation they give and the decision they reach as to whether or not the statute then before them contains or does not contain a provision contrary to the bill of rights.
I have said there would be no difference with respect to the process through which the courts would have to go, but there are important differences with respect to ancillary effects of this amendment. One of the most important is that it takes the protection we desire to give out of the bill of rights and puts it in the Interpretation Act. To my mind this is an undesirable effect. We want the bill of rights to be complete and to speak completely with regard to the rights of Canadians and the protection of those rights, and with regard to the instruction, the rule of interpretation, that shall be given to the courts in their application and protection of these rights. We do not want them to be scattered around by transferring them to the Interpretation Act. That would make the bill of rights an incomplete document, and we attach very great importance to enacting a bill of rights as a complete document.
I am not surprised that my hon. friends would seek to take this out of the bill of rights and put it in the Interpretation Act. They have been attacking the bill of rights indirectly all along.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They do not like the bill of rights, and they have sought by every possible means to weaken it, though never admitting that was their intention. Now they seek to take out of the bill of rights one of the very fundamental purposes of the bill that would empower the courts in the bill of rights itself-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope you are willing to stay here all next week.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -to deal with this matter. I think it is time that the effect of what the opposition has been suggesting all along should be revealed and exposed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And the bar association.
Human Rights


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is another important difference in effect between our bill and what would be accomplished by the amendment. It is another most undesirable effect that would be accomplished by the amendment. You would weaken the protection that is afforded to the rights of the individual, not just because you would have taken it out of the bill of rights and put it into another statute, which I think in a very proper sense could be described as of lesser importance, but because you would have put it in a statute that parliament would have much less hesitation in amending than it would in amending or overriding the bill of rights. After all, all you would have to say before parliament if you wanted to take away these rights, indirectly and by subterfuge and concealment, would be that it was simply an amendment to the Interpretation Act. I think it is fair to say that probably only lawyers would be interested then. They would be mainly concerned because interpretation acts are understood to be mainly matters of legal import, which are of a technical nature and of concern to lawyers.
But the bill of rights is a statute about which all Canadians will know and whose effects will be dear to their hearts. As a result they will scrutinize any change most carefully and, I believe, from the point of view of being suspicious about what any government tries to do subsequently with the bill of rights. Therefore I am surprised again that my hon. friends, who have placed before us time after time proposals that would weaken the bill of rights, seek in this amendment to further that same objective; because they would place the protection in the Interpretation Act, which could be amended much more readily and with much less public interest and discussion than an amendment to the bill of rights. Indeed, I suggest that their amendment would make it possible to change, by implication, the rule of interpretation which they have in their amendment, because it is just another rule of the Interpretation Act and not made sacrosanct as part of the bill of rights itself.
For all these reasons, but mainly because it changes nothing in effect with respect to the process the courts would have to go through, I a-m opposed to the amendment. It changes nothing with respect to the processes the courts would have to go through, but it does have a very definite and disadvantageous effect in that it seeks to remove from the bill of rights one of the fundamental protections of the Canadian citizen about which this government are concerned, and we are not prepared to see done by

Human Rights
subterfuge that which my hon. friends opposite are not able to do directly.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said the amendment would mean that the courts would not be able to make the proper decisions, but it would seem to me the amendment means that many of the acts already passed would be found to be defective. The minister asked what acts would need to be corrected. I should think there are many acts that would have to be corrected to bring into effect the purposes of the bill of rights.
If the minister is interested he might take a look at the Feeds Act, which has been mentioned before this session. In ten or eleven instances in that legislation rights that we consider so fundamental are taken away from the individual. Let us take a look at another instance which is much more flagrant. If the minister and the Prime Minister are not interested in correcting statutes that we now have on the statute books, then the bill of rights is only a sham and a farce. Under the Fisheries Act, for instance, inspectors have the right to seize boats and equipment, anything they think may have been used in contravention of the law. The individual concerned is not even given the protection of a warning that anything he may say may be used in evidence against him. In this instance the officials who lay the charges also hear the evidence and pass sentence. There have been many cases where boats have been seized and held for some time and then returned, but there is no recourse for the individual concerned because this is the law.
In the case of the Feeds Act there is the right to search without a warrant. Protection against self-incrimination and against forced confessions is removed, and excessive fines are provided which constitute cruel and inhuman punishment.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. member permit a question for purposes of clarification? Is my recollection incorrect that when the Feeds Act amendments were before the house the hon. member expressed approval of these amendments and of that act?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is perfectly true. It is a fair question to ask, but I am not a lawyer. I am not familiar with the fine points of the law or the interpretation of the law.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not the point you are making, anyway.


William Arnold Peters: We have had legal advice from the people who are administering this particular legislation. I should like to refer to some of the sections that we would like to see strengthened. The Prime Minister is a very

capable lawyer, with a long history in law, and he must recognize that these are facts. In Canada we have given protection to animals, and we have given the officials concerned with animals more power than we have given to those officials who are dealing with human beings.
The bill of rights gives security in the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law. However, section 7 (1) (a) of the Feeds Act empowers a government inspector, who may be any person designated by the Minister of Agriculture-this includes political appointees, Mr. Chairman, if the government wants to make appointments for political reasons-to enter private property, search the premises and any private documents and papers therein, and take away samples, all without the process of a search warrant. This power is contrary to clause 2 (a) of the proposed Canadian bill of rights.
Then there is the fact that self-crimination protection has been removed. Sections 7 (1) (b) and 7 (3) of the Feeds Act require a person to give to a government inspector documentary and oral information upon which a criminal charge may be laid against that person. Clause 3 (d) of the proposed bill of rights provides that no act of parliament shall authorize an authority to compel a person to give evidence if that person is denied protection against self-crimination.
Then, too, protection against a coerced confession has been removed. By these subsections parliament abrogates the human right of freedom that a person shall not be coerced to confess. This is so because section 9 makes it an offence for a person to refuse to give written or oral information, or for the person to make a false or misleading written or oral statement, to a government inspector. The penalty for refusing such information or for making a false or misleading statement ranges on summary conviction from a fine of up to $500 to a fine of up to $500 plus up to six months in jail, and upon indictment to a maximum of $2,000 plus one year in jail. In both cases, in addition, there may be confiscation of whatever property the government inspector reasonably believes was used in committing or in relation to committing the offence. Under the threat of such punishment, this parliament has decreed this session that coerced confessions are legal under the Feeds Act. The proposed bill of rights is at variance with this decree in providing in clause 3 (d) that no act of parliament shall deprive a person of a constitutional safeguard against self-crimination.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am seeking information, and I should like to know whether my hon.

friend is reading from the Feeds Act or from an opinion on the Feeds Act?


William Arnold Peters: These are sections taken from the Feeds Act, but I am not actually reading the Feeds Act. I could read the actual sections indicated if the minister wishes. This is an interpretation of what I believe the Feeds Act itself contains.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this cruel and inhuman punishment clause also applies to excessive fines. I may say that earlier this session I raised a point of order when the Prime Minister introduced this bill, not in a facetious way but in a serious manner, because I believed we had already passed a bill this session which would eliminate many of these rights which we propose to give under this bill. However, that matter never came to a decision, and I am not raising it now. We did do some work on this Feeds Act, and it is not by any means the worst of the statutes we have on the statute books in Canada. If the Prime Minister would like to make a detailed examination he can check them himself and he will probably come to a similar conclusion.
I should like to refer to the provisions dealing with arbitrary detention and liberty of the person. Under section 7 (1) (b) and 7 (3) of the Feeds Act an inspector is also empowered to deprive a person of his right not to be arbitrarily detained. Any and every person in the premises must remain at the behest of the inspector and, surrendering the liberty of his person, assist the inspector either by giving information or by physical assistance, as the inspector may require. Well, of course, this would be in contravention of the rights given to the individual under the bill of rights.
I think this amendment which has been suggested is a good amendment, because it would seem to me that the minister would have to give consideration to new legislation that may come before parliament. I would hope, in addition, that the provision would cover government legislation as well as private bills. It appears to me that the clause means that the Minister of Justice is going to look at all new legislation in the light of the provisions contained in the bill of rights. It seems to me that he is going to have to look at the legislation that has been passed already, as well.
It shocked me to hear the Minister of Justice stand up and say that he thinks the courts are going to be able to make decisions because we will have passed this bill of rights. If, for example, a fisherman out on the west coast had a boat loaded with fish and the inspector came aboard to say he was detaining this boat; then a week later,
Human Rights
when the fish were all rotten, he said he had not found anything wrong and therefore the fisherman was free to do whatever he liked with the fish, this would be a contravention of the fisherman's rights. However, if the fisherman has to go before a court to say that this action has contravened his rights as guaranteed by the Canadian bill of rights, if he is going to have to fight the case on that basis then my understanding of the purpose of the bill of rights is all wrong.
I feel the Canadian people have the right to assume that they have certain fundamental rights extended to them by this bill, and that no act of parliament is going to take away those rights. Unless we start from that basis, that people have these fundamental rights and that all legislation should be brought into line with our thinking today in so far as a bill of rights is concerned, then we are being very silly. If a man has to go to court and base his case on what is in the bill of rights, then that it not what I have understood the Prime Minister to say this bill of rights means.
The Prime Minister has said that we have certain expressed freedoms, we have certain expressed rights, and that those rights should be a basic part of all legislation in Canada. I am not saying that we should go back more than 20 years to ascertain whether or not these rights are protected in the various legislative measures passed in Canada. Many times a smart lawyer will look back many, many years to find a precedent or a procedure that has not been heard of for a long time, and will use it as a defence. I am not suggesting that we should go back that far to change these laws. However, I do believe we should change those laws that we know are in conflict with the bill of rights.
The immigration laws, Mr. Chairman, are a good example. In some cases we grill people without even giving them the right to counsel. We make deals. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has made deals which she has no right to make. She has made these offers to citizens who are outside the law, and which do not allow for due process of law, as the bill of rights says. I have right now, for instance, a case where a citizen of this country for 47 years applies for a passport and has no right whatsoever to go before any court; he has no right, under any existing legislation, to go before the court and be given a reason why he has not been given a passport. The reason, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. This particular gentleman has supported the communist party for a number of years and has gone to a number of communist front organizations. But this organization is not illegal; it is permissible to belong

Human Rights
to it, and this gentleman has a fundamental right to belong to that particular political faith if he so wishes. If the Canadian parliament wishes to outlaw it, then I think this would be a reason. But I do not think it should be prohibited by any officials of the department, who can say, "Sure, you can leave Canada; but we will give you no assurance that you can return, although this has been your home for 47 years and you have done nothing illegal".
These are fundamental rights that should be written into our laws, and they should be changes in the existing legislation and regulations. We should do this without an individual having to go to court with all the expense of fighting these cases on his own. If we are not, as a legislative body, willing to go back and examine the legislation we have on the statute books now, while we are dealing with a bill of rights, then I think we are not really saying that we want a bill of rights. What we seem to want is a bill of rights on paper, but we want to have all the abuses that have been inherent in much of our legislation over the years.
We have another case right now before parliament. It is a case to which the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister should give some consideration in this respect. One of the special committees is meeting right now discussing whether we have the power, when we ask for an investigation into a situation, to require those people to appear here. We have a man who wishes to appeal in a parliamentary divorce, and we have not the right to subpoena him; we have not the right to give him the protection that is normally given-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. gentleman is dealing with a question of procedure now, and not the bill of rights. I would ask him to please come back to clause 2 of the bill of rights.


William Arnold Peters: The Magna Carta many years ago gave a man the right to a fair hearing, and I suggest this is one of the fundamental freedoms that we are now asking for. Yet under legislation and regulations that we have passed and under which we operate, we in this house are not granting to the people who come before us the right of redress. If we are not willing to go back into the legislation and the regulations, it seems to me it is rather a farce for us to have a bill of rights.
I think the sponsor of this bill has agreed that this is going to have to be the case in all forthcoming legislation. The next clause in this bill gives to the minister the right to examine all new legislation and bring

it into a fair relationship with the bill of rights, and that all legislation should take-


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member is now on clause 3. We are discussing clause 2. Will he come back to clause 2?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we should add to clause 3-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman should be allowed to continue his argument and indicate the effect of this clause of the bill of rights. I am sure the committee would desire to hear the hon. gentleman.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I assumed that it had something to do with the amendment; that the effect of the amendment, if it were passed, would mean that regulations and legislation would be re-examined. I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that there have been regulations over the years that have eliminated many things. In many cases we have come to the position where inspectors and others concerned with the administration of acts have been given broad powers which in many cases have eliminated the due process of law as it could be administered under the bill of rights.
This is the only point I am raising, and I assume it has some relationship to the amendment that is now before us and has been given some consideration in clause 3- that is the only reason I referred to that clause-in relation to future legislation. I think the effect of this amendment would be to extend that examination to legislation that has already been passed. That was the reason I raised it at this particular time.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, in my humble opinion, if this bill of rights is to mean anything, if it is to be at all effective as I am sure the Prime Minister would like it to be, the Minister of Justice should give very serious consideration to the amendment that has been proposed. I am rather surprised to find that there seems to be a contest going on here with the Minister of Justice as to his knowledge of law and the knowledge of law of other people. I have great respect for the knowledge of the Minister of Justice on the law, and he may well be right; but I do not think a serious amendment such as the one now before us should be so lightly and off the cuff discarded and a series of reasons given for it.
I am sure it could have had the very serious contemplation that was given to it by eminent counsel in Canada, by the Canadian Bar Association and by many notable lawyers. I do not want to think the Minister of Justice considers himself the oracle or the repository of all legal opinion; that he is infallible in
AUGUST 3/ I960
interpreting the amendment or in interpreting the law. Surely that is not quite right. Notwithstanding his rather lengthy, detailed and complicated explanation of why he does not accept the amendment, I am not at all sure that I am impressed.
To quote an illustration, under this bill of rights-I feel sure that the Prime Minister will agree with me on this-in clause 2, paragraph (e), no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to:
... deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice ...
We have, for example, the Immigration Act, section 39, which denies the right of appeal. I only give this to the minister as an illustration. What will be given precedence? Will it be the Immigration Act, when the matter comes before a court, or will it be the bill of rights? The Immigration Act says you have no right of appeal; the bill of rights says you shall not be deprived of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
There are other acts on the statute books which contain sections that say the interpretation of the section shall always be in favour of the government. That could be so, even for those in conflict with the bill of rights. This is a series of such statutes on our statute books, and it is my respectful submission that where there is any doubt as to the proper application of the bill of rights the benefit of the doubt should be given to the people of Canada, not to the interpretation which the Minister of Justice almost unilaterally seems to be giving to it.
I think the amendment which the hon. member for Essex East has presented is the crux of the entire effectiveness of this bill of rights. It safeguards the people of Canada against all the statutes which contain provisions which seem to impinge upon the rights of the individual, which the bill of rights wants to restore. I have great respect for the gentlemen sitting in front of the Minister of Justice. I wonder if they have made a study of this matter. I wonder, if they had had before them this amendment that is now before us, whether they could have presented logical explanations regarding the objections they have to our interpretation.
I think the minister would do the country, and the legislation, a world of good if he would make it possible, in the case of any doubt, to interpret the use, the effectiveness, the feasibility and the practicability of the bill of rights in favour of the people of Canada, or of the person who feels himself aggrieved. That is the very spirit of the act, and I submit respectfully, along with the hon.
Human Rights
member for Essex East, that the amendment should be adopted. I think this amendment was wisely conceived and carefully planned. The minister will do himself and the Prime Minister a great injustice if he does not accept it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not propose to restate my argument. I have stated it, and the hon. member for Cartier has elaborated on it. This is the crux of the matter. The bill depends on its interpretation, either the one the minister gives to it or the one that we have placed on it. This is the clause of the bill that will give substance to the effectiveness of this measure or which will mean that it will have no teeth, no effectiveness whatsoever.
The amendment I have put forward, as the minister knows, is an amendment which was suggested after close consultation with one of the best constitutional lawyers of this country, a man who has had long and distinguished experience in the Department of Justice. The hon. gentleman knows that Mr. Mundell has a place second to no one in the administration of the affairs of justice in this country. He was the one selected by the Canadian bar as chairman of its civil liberties division. He is now professor of constitutional law at Osgoode Hall. However, the minister has taken his position and he must bear the consequences.
I am not going to answer the hon. gentleman's remarks about the purpose we have in mind in putting forward the amendment. The Minister of Justice has a great capacity for facilitating the passage of measures in which he is interested. He uses that biting, friendly, benevolent, carping criticism that seeks in one breath to mollify and in the next to kill; all in the process, of course, of enabling the passage of legislation.
The hon. gentleman may want to reconsider what he has said. Whether he does or not is of no concern to anyone. Suffice it to say this; that as the Prime Minister said of the committee which examined the bill of rights, all members who were present applied themselves seriously to this matter, and that, I may say, includes the Minister of Justice. So when we put forward an amendment, which does not satisfy the great legal attainments of the Minister of Justice we are, of course, accused of seeking to block the measure merely because we do not agree with the man who happens to be Minister of Justice. I would have thought that the Minister of Justice, acting in that capacity, would recognize that on points of law he should take a lofty, objective position and find it possible to disagree without entering into a kind of

Human Rights
argument which possibly would be justified on some other occasion in connection with some other matter.
But, as I say, we will leave the matter there. We shall see next year who is right; whether the Canadian Bar Association is right, with its great accumulation of legal knowledge, or the hon. gentleman, with the vast store of legal equipment that has suddenly descended on him. I ask the hon. gentleman to consider, too, whether the courts are going to interpret existing inconsistent legislation such as the Railway Act, chapter 293; the Pipe Lines Act, chapter 211, sections 28 and 29; the War Measures Act, chapter 288, section 3; the Compensation (Defence) Act; the Canadian National Railways Act; the Canadian Broadcasting Act; the National Harbours Board Act; the national hospital insurance act; the narcotic and drug control act; the Immigration Act; the Lord's Day Act-I ask the Minister of Justice, the lord chancellor, as it were of our country, whether he thinks the Supreme Court of Canada in the light of the way this bill now stands, when confronted with concrete situations, is going to say that a specific act inconsistent with the generality of this measure is to take second place to this bill.
That is the argument of the hon. gentleman. He has made it, and we have provided our answer. All one can do is await the results which will be represented by what will happen in the courts of this land when lawyers resort to this bill of rights as a means of providing defences in criminal cases, or as a means of providing responses in civil cases, all of which could be avoided if the Minister of Justice would accept responsibility and put in this bill language which would clearly have the effect which this amendment provides.
My final observation is this. The minister himself said he wanted the act, for the purpose of public relations and legitimate propaganda, divided so the preamble and sections 1 and 2 would stand by themselves. If the effect of amending the Interpretation Act is as the hon. gentleman says, that effect would be consistent with the declared objective he had in mind. In any event, I am sure the hon. gentleman's legal advisers will tell him, if he does not know already, that the Interpretation Act is the basic statute by which parliament and the executive seeks to deal with abridgements and amendments in cases, where there is a whole series of amendments which cannot be fully dealt with.
That is the gist of the amendment. The hon. gentleman has not accepted it. He prefers to place his own judgment ahead of that of the Canadian Bar Association.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise not so much to refute what the hon. member has just said as to give an additional reason why this amendment should not be accepted.
I am not going to enter into a debate with the hon. gentleman from Essex East as to whose attitude in this committee has been more appropriate. I simply remind the committee that the hon. gentleman himself has a peculiar approach to these matters. He seems to believe that the right to reply should be entirely on one side and that it does not matter what sort of argument or in what terms, larded with what undesirable or offensive innuendo, he speaks, those on this side have no right to put forward a contrary point of view. But I shall leave it there. The committee has heard the discussion and the committee will decide upon which side lies the responsibility for any, shall I say, sharp exchanges which may have taken place.
I admit at once that it is desirable in discussions of this kind to keep them on a high plane at all times. I suppose the obligation in that respect does lie a little more on this side than it does on the hon. gentleman, and there I perhaps pay him an indirect compliment when I say he has a facility for rapidly reducing discussion to levels to which perhaps it is desirable it should not descend.
But let us deal with this question, and I shall be glad to deal with it quite objectively. I do not for a moment question the ability of Mr. Mundell, nor do I say that in the mind of the Minister of Justice personally rests this vast store of knowledge that warrants his rejecting this amendment. I say simply that as a result of the best consideration we can give the question we have concluded that the views put forward by the hon. member for Essex East, whether they be his own or not, in this amendment are not acceptable because they do not serve the purpose we have in mind for the bill of rights as we have prepared it. I am not going to repeat my earlier arguments, but I shall add one further argument which substantiates the position I have taken.
If the committee will read carefully the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Essex East, hon. members will find that although it might be operative with respect to statutes it is almost entirely deficient with respect to regulations, rules and orders, whereas our bill of rights by a combination of clause 2 and the interpretation provision in clause 5 will have effect with respect not only to the statutes but with respect to all orders, rules and regulations made thereunder in the future as well as in the past.

If you look at subsection 1 of the amendment you will find that it reads:
Every act of the parliament of Canada and every order, rule and regulation thereunder in force at the commencement of this section, and all laws in Canada that are subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the parliament of Canada in force at the commencement of this section, are hereby amended by repealing or revoking them-
Regulations that are in force at this time
would, it is true, be affected by the provision as it is drawn but the amendment is deficient because it does not contain a provision to bring regulations hereafter enacted, under its operation. It is true that subsection 2 does refer to "no act of the parliament of Canada passed hereafter" but that omits all reference to regulations or orders, and "act of parliament of Canada" is not a phrase which is included in the definition of law as we have it in the bill. It is by reason of our definition of "law" our bill has application to all orders and regulations made under statute. There is a vital deficiency in the amendment as drawn.
This, it may be argued, is perhaps a technical objection to the amendment, but it is one of importance because it reveals that there is a wide field of statutory orders and regulations which we believe a bill of rights should cover, both past and future, that are omitted from the amendment as submitted by the hon. member for Essex East. Because we want our bill of rights to be effective in all fields we, for that additional reason, have come to the conclusion that the amendment should not be accepted.
Amendment (Mr. Martin, Essex East) negatived: Yeas, 22; nays, 32.


Azellus Denis: Oh, oh. That was close.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, at this point I should like to ask the committee to consider an amendment to clause 2 in line 13 thereof, an amendment which would have the effect of inserting the word "Canadian" before the words "bill of rights" so that lines 11 to 13 would read:
Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an act of the parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian bill of rights-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I second that motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not moved it yet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You surely do not object to having my becoming the seconder?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, not at all. I should say briefly to the committee that this was an inadvertent omission from the changes made
Human Rights
in the bill when it was in the special committee. I would ask one of my colleagues if he would move the amendment accordingly.


Mr. Brooks:: I move:
That clause 2 be amended by inserting in line 13 thereof the word "Canadian" before the words "bill of rights".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I did not have the opportunity of being associated with the Minister of Veterans Affairs in this motion. He will recall that when the Minister of Justice proposed this amendment I agreed at once to second it. I find it difficult to understand why the minister would not give me that honour. However, the Minister of Justice has followed a narrow course in his interpretations throughout the discussion of this bill, and I suppose one would not expect him to deny that honour to one who at least had spoken up first. I think the amendment is a good one.
What I am about to say is not an answer to what the minister said about the purpose of the present discussion in so far members of the Liberal party are concerned. We prefer to look upon that remark more as a lapse on the part of the Minister of Justice in the highly objective attitude he takes in these matters. It is interesting to note that this important question represents very valuable work on the part of the committee. I wish to refer again to the work done by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who more than anyone else extricated all of us, including the Minister of Justice, from the difficulty that was posed in clause 2 (b) as it now appears before the committee. The original bill provided for wording which read as follows:
- (b) impose or authorize the imposition of torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment:
That was the wording of old clause 3(b). The minister took the position in the committee that he could not change that wording because of the effect of the declaration of human rights. He pointed out, and correctly, that these words "torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" were incorporated in the declaration of human rights, and that as Canada had joined in that declaration we could not accept something that was less in the bill of rights.
The minister was rather stubborn. He would not give in on that point notwithstanding the representations that were made by members of the Conservative party as well as by Liberal members. It will be recalled that the hon. member for Greenwood who was there, as I say, amicus curiae, joined with us in the concern we all felt over this measure.

Human Rights
The hon. member for York-Scarborough, who happened to turn up that day, was accorded the right as an interested hon. member to put questions and make his observations. When it was pointed out to him that the words as contained in the bill as originally proposed would do the very thing which he sought to do in the motion he brought before this house during the course of this session, namely abolish capital punishment, he was, of course, very gratified.
I suspect it was only the presence and the gratification of the hon. member for York-Scarborough that caused the Minister of Justice, realizing the dilemna into which his false logic had put him, to decide to accept the recommendation made by the hon. member for Vane ouver-Kings way, who said that the minister might resort to the wording of the bill of rights in England of the seventeenth century and take out "torture" and "inhuman" and "degrading" and put in the words "cruel and unusual". The result was that the committee was satisfied with the arrangement. The only possible dissatisfaction would be that of the hon. member for Scarborough, who will find that all his efforts this session are not going to be backed up by the wording which the Minister of Justice in his omniscience has now put into paragraph (b). I think we all recognize the contribution made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
I now wish to refer to clause 2 (f) of the bill, where among the most important single rights are those put there as a result of the contribution and recommendation made by the hon. member for Fort William. The hon. member for Fort William is not a lawyer but, like the hon. member for Humber-St. George's, he proved to be a useful member of the committee. It was the hon. member for Fort William who pointed out that the bill left out two very important legal rights, which were referred to in the draft bill of the Ontario bar association and in the declaration on human rights. These two important legal rights are the right to be presumed innocent, placing the onus of proving guilt on those making the charge, and the refusal of reasonable bail without just cause. This is one of the rights declared to be sacrosanct in the declaration on human rights.
Other suggestions were made. Accordingly consideration was given by all members of the committee, including those of this party, to obtain elucidations, particularly in clause 2 (d). I merely mention this to indicate that the changes in this section, as in others, were not all made by the minister; they were changes made as a result of the serious study given to this bill by all members of the committee. By implication I hope the
(Mr. Martin (Essex East).]
minister will regard this as an answer to the very objective and wholly selfless observations he made half an hour ago.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, there is a very important right, one that we certainly look upon as fundamental, which we should like to be included here, in clause 2, on page 2, after paragraph (f). I mean the right to free assistance by an interpreter.
There is no need to elaborate on this; several of my colleagues will want to express their views on this matter. But before introducing my amendment, I wish to point out that when we submitted a similar amendment in committee, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) hesitated a great deal before agreeing to its rejection.
(Text):
At page 694 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence, after the chairman put the motion having to do with free assistance of an interpreter, the minister said:


Edmund Davie Fulton: May we have this stand over?


Jacques Flynn: Is it agreeable then to have the question stand over?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is the moment for adjournment, and I do not think our decision should be taken in haste.
Before putting my amendment, Mr. Chairman, I thought it would be a good thing to outline the hesitation on the part of the minister with regard to similar amendments we have moved.


Mr. Brunsden:: On a point of order, is the hon. member in order in reviewing the procedure in committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: He certainly is.


Jacques Flynn: Yes. I ruled yesterday that it was in order to discuss the evidence taken before the committee.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Essex East:
That clause 2 be amended as follows:
That the paragraph designated (g) be added after present paragraph (f):
"Deprive a person of the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court or before a board or tribunal".


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which has just been moved by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is one which it seems to me should commend itself to the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister. While 1 was not a member of the committee which discussed this matter, I understand that the reason it was not given consideration at the time was that it was felt that there was sufficient protection

under clause 2 (e) and (f) of the bill to meet the position which has been taken in the amendment.
I am going to ask the minister to give consideration to three cases that I should like to put on Hansard, together with an interpretation of the British North America Act with which I will deal in a moment.
I refer first of all to the case which took place in Eastview recently where a commissioner clearly refused the right of an interpreter in a matter which was under investigation under and by virtue of the municipal act. There was no doubt in the mind of the commissioner that the person who came forward to give evidence should not be entitled to an interpreter. That position was in fact confirmed by the attorney general of the province, although he said if he had been present he would have allowed the particular person to be heard in the language of her choice. However, it is clear that in that case the commissioner hearing the evidence determined that that individual should not be entitled to an interpreter.
I pass from that to the case that was mentioned in the house earlier, namely that of a citizen of Czech origin who also was refused the right to give evidence before a court in his own language. That was dealt with by another hon. member, and I shall not deal with it other than to refer to it generally.
However, there is another case which is famous in the province of Ontario because of the attitude taken by a justice of the supreme court of the province. It involves a criminal case which was heard in eastern Ontario some years ago. A witness came forward and when it was recognized by the court that the person spoke broken English counsel acting on behalf of the accused-this, of course, was not the accused but a witness in the case-suggested than an interpreter be allowed for this individual. The presiding justice peremptorily refused to grant the right to that individual to have an interpreter. Not only did the judge refuse the right of interpretation in that case but, and I was present in the court-


John George Diefenbaker: What court was that?


Lionel Chevrier: Unfortunately I do not remember the name of the case.


John George Diefenbaker: What court?


Lionel Chevrier: It was the supreme court of Ontario on circuit. I can give the name of the judge but I would rather give it to the Prime Minister later because the judge is now deceased. I was present in the court room and the case received much publicity at the time. When the judge refused permission to this witness in a criminal case to have an interpreter, he lashed out strongly against the
Human Rights
witness, and do you know what he said to him? He said that any witness coming before a court in Ontario who did not understand the English language and could not testify in that language should be refused the right to vote. That was said in my presence. Do you know what the sequel to this was? In the great war that followed a son of the individual who was refused the right to testify in his own language gave up his life.
I should like to refer very briefly to two editorials which appeared in La Presse of Montreal and Le Droit of this city having to do with the case in Eastview. The editorial in La Presse is found in the issue of July 28, 1960, and appears under the signature of Roger Champoux. It notes with some surprise that in a municipality where 70 per cent of the population is of French extraction a citizen who sought the right to express herself in her own language was refused that right by the presiding commissioner. I will simply refer to this one statement which appears in the editorial:
(Translation):
Let us overlook the magistrate's lack of pondera-tion and consider only his lack of judgment. He should have known three things.
(Text):
I come to the third in order to be brief. (Translation):
The right of a citizen to express himself in his mother tongue is the very first civil liberty that a magistrate is charged precisely to have respected.
(Text):
My translation of that is that the right of a citizen to express himself in his own language is one of the first civil liberties that a magistrate is charged precisely to have respected. I hear somebody saying that this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, but I said earlier that I want to apply it to the federal jurisdiction, if my friend will only be patient. Then, in Le Droit:
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, may 1 ask the hon. member a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: How does he explain that, when the matter of installing a simultaneous interpretation system in the House of Commons was raised, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) objected?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak for the hon. member for Hull, but I know it was the predecessor of the present member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who, for the first time, introduced a resolution in the house recommending the installation of simultaneous interpretation.

Human Rights


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, how is it that the hon. member for Laurier and his government failed to act upon the proposal of the former member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm? Why?
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I was dealing with the editorial which appeared in Le Droit of July 30, 1960, and which deals with the attitude of the attorney general in this case. I should like to quote a portion of it.
(Translation):
The Toronto official claimed, on that occasion, that the witness had no right at all to speak French; he forbade Mrs. X to use the services of an interpreter.
Mr. Roberts made three points in his reply. "I do not blame Mr. Yates for rejecting Mrs. X's request", he said. "Personally," he added deferentially, "I would have allowed that lady to testify in French; however," he added with conviction, "English is the only official language in Ontario".
(Text):
That brings me to the federal aspect of this whole matter. As members of the committee know, the right to the use of the two official languages in so far as parliament is concerned is to be found in section 133 of the British North America Act, which reads as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both these languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
It is clear that under this section the very same thing which happened in the cases I have mentioned could take place under the federal jurisdiction. If a hearing were held before a board which was not a court of federal jurisdiction, if, for instance, a witness was giving evidence before the board of transport commissioners, although I have some doubt there because it has been declared to be a court of record, or before the air transport board or the many commissions which are not covered by this section of the British North America Act, it might well be that the person presiding might take the same attitude as did the judge in the case in eastern Ontario some years ago to which I have referred and the commissioner under the municipal act who has heard and is still hearing evidence in an adjoining community while we in the parliament of Canada are discussing a bill of rights.
So it would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, here is one case where there being doubt,-in fact, where there being no longer any doubt because the commissioner or the person presiding could do exactly as was done in the

former cases-that doubt should be removed. It would strike me that there should not be the slightest hesitation on the part of those who sit on the other side to grant the privilege-the right, not the privilege-of being heard in their own language, no matter what that may be.
I understood the Minister of Justice to say that that was covered by (e) and (f), but let me say this. Supposing the commissioner, under a federal board, takes the attitude which I am sure the commissioner in the Eastview case must have taken-when he said, I did give a fair trial to that person; in my opinion it was not unfair to refuse the right to an interpreter. Assuming that is done under a federal board, then that is not a right which an individual has. It then becomes a right which the commissioner or chairman has under the circumstances and that is why it seems to me that this is a reasonable amendment. I should add that it is a matter of custom in certain parts of the province of Ontario to allow an interpreter. I know that in many courts and in many areas where I have appeared immediately a witness states that he or she is unable to speak the English language the judge offers the use of an interpreter. However, this is not a right to which the witness is entitled, certainly not under this bill. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Minister of Justice, knowing him as I do.
It seems from what the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont said a moment ago that there was some hesitation about this amendment at one time. Perhaps I am wrong about that, and the Minister of Justice will say whether or not that is the case. I have a feeling that there was some hesitation, and if that be so there is every reason why there should have been, particularly in the light of section 133 of the British North America Act and particularly in the light of the repetition of events which has taken place elsewhere, taking place before a board or tribunal under federal jurisdiction. I am sure the Prime Minister would not want that to happen. I am sure that is not the intention of the bill of rights. If it is not put in specifically I do not think it is enough to say that he shall have a fair trial because here it was thought in the hearing in Eastview that a fair trial was being given to this individual, but none the less there was no right granted to the witness to have the evidence given in the language of her choice.


John George Diefenbaker: That was not a trial.


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister is quite right; that was not a trial, it was an inquiry within the purview of the municipal act. There might be similar inquiries under federal jurisdiction. I thought of the air

transport board as I went along earlier. There are many, many boards under federal jurisdiction. I could get my directory, and I am sure I could list 30 or 40 of them, if not more, where circumstances such as these could repeat themselves.
I hope that those who sit on the other side of the house will accept what I have said in the sentiment in which it is put forward. It is put forward because I believe that here a right was taken away. This bill, in its clause 2 and all the other particulars that are mentioned therein, will not cover a repetition of a situation such as this under federal jurisdiction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Laurier is quite correct in his interpretation of what took place in the committee. There was some hesitation in respect to this amendment which was offered there, for the very considerations put forward when the hon. member made the appeal he just made. This is a matter which is obviously one where there would be the greatest hesitation, not only to turn down but even to appear to turn down a suggestion that on its face mentions the right to an interpreter on the part of a person who cannot understand the proceedings before the court.
The point I made in the committee, and on the basis of which I asked for time for consideration, was that in my view the right to an interpreter is covered under subparagraphs (e) and (f) of this clause. I said in the committee, and I am reading from page 693 of the evidence:
I have no hesitation in saying that to refuse to grant a person the services of an interpreter, if he is unable to understand the language being used in the procedures of the court, is not a fair hearing: I would say it was a grossly unfair hearing, and I make that statement of fact or principle without saying that it is applicable to the case that you have cited-
That was the Eastview case.
-because I do not know the facts of that case.
I did make the statement of principle that to refuse to allow a person the services of an interpreter if he does not understand the language being used in the proceedings in the court constitutes an unfair hearing. It was because I held that view so strongly that I could not contemplate any reviewing court before which it was established that a person in a court or tribunal below who could not understand the language being used was, nevertheless, refused the services of an interpreter, which would not come immediately to the conclusion it was an unfair hearing, and therefore the bill of rights would apply. They would say this man has been deprived of his right to a fair hearing, and therefore would we find the proceedings below are a nullity. In my opinion that would
Human Rights
follow automatically. It was for that reason that I asked for time to consider, to reassure myself or to consider further the question of whether clauses (e) and (f) were a sufficient answer to the request for an amendment.
At that time I came to the conclusion both that it was covered by the clauses and that it was a sufficient answer to the amendment. On reflection, however, I think I should say that while I am still of the view it is covered in the bill as provided, and I am still strongly of that view, I think there is a question about whether that view is a sufficient answer to the suggestion that it might be incorporated in a bill of rights.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For those reasons, although it may be and although it is, I believe, covered in our bill of rights, I must recognize that what I had in mind to some extent might be applicable only when a person appeals to a higher court to review the proceedings below.
I have, therefore, been impressed with the point of view which suggests that since some magistrates or tribunals in the first instance may say, "I am giving a fair hearing", and the person before them will not be able to rely upon the bill of rights as to exactly what a fair hearing is, they may be denied a fair hearing in the first instance and thus compelled to resort to some sort of appeal procedure. Because this point is so important I have been impressed, and I do not mind admitting that it may be second thought, with the argument that we should avoid the possibility that the person concerned may be put to the necessity of appeal; that we should put it in the bill of rights and make it clear to all courts and all tribunals under our authority-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that the fair hearing involves the provision or the right of the person to have the use and the services of an interpreter if he does not understand-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -the language before the court.


Leon David Crestohl: What about proceedings from which there is no appeal?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would say to my hon. friend from Cartier that I think it would be most unlikely that in any instance where a person was deprived of a fair hearing, in this sense, he could not get an appeal or hearing of some sort.


Leon David Crestohl: I was just asking for the minister's opinion.

Human Rights


Edmund Davie Fulton: We will not go into that at the moment. We did pause to consider this matter when it was brought up in the standing committee, and I would still want to pause and consider the terms of the amendment offered here, because I would find some difficulty in accepting it in the terms in which it is offered. I do so for the reason that it does not now, nor did it in the special committee, contain anything which ties the right to the services of the interpreter to a person who is in anyway before the court. It simply says:
Deprive a person of the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court, or before a board or tribunal.
I recognize this is carrying the argument rather far; but, as I see it, on the basis of that wording a spectator might put forward the argument-and there are eccentrics in the country-and say, "Your bill of rights says a person shall not be deprived of the right to an interpreter if he cannot understand the language used in court; I am here, I cannot understand the language; I demand the right to an interpreter". I know that is not the intention; but I think that in drawing up provisions of the bill of rights we must make sure they do not carry it further than the point to which we want to go; and the point to which we want to go, surely, is to ensure that a person whose rights are in question, whose rights or obligations are in question before the court, shall have it established that he has the right to an interpreter if he does not understand the language being used in the court. To that point we are quite prepared to go, as a result of the reconsideration along the lines that I have outlined here.
There is perhaps a further question with respect to the word "free". I do not want to express any firm opinion on this at the moment. However, the use of the word raises questions as to the obligation to pay for the interpreter, and that would be a matter that would be extremely difficult to embrace within the provisions of this kind of bill. It is my own view that if you establish the right to have an interpreter the court will see to it, without any difficulty, that those services are made available if there should be any question of payment. That is another reason why I find it difficult to accept the amendment as drafted.
We have an amendment here which we have been considering and which I should like to read to the committee. Perhaps there will then be further discussion of the matter and in the course of that discussion there could be further consideration given as to the wording to be ultimately adopted. The amend-

ment here is that there should be added a paragraph, known as (g) as follows:
(g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings for the determination of his rights or obligations before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.
This, Mr. Chairman, does contain some of the words of the expression that I used before the special committee which I read from page 693, when I said:
I have no hesitation in saying that to refuse to grant a person the services of an interpreter, if he is unable to understand the language being used in the procedures of the court, is not a fair hearing;-
You will see that is largely incorporated into the last words of this suggested amendment "if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted". So because we are intensely concerned to provide a fair hearing for all those who come to our country, who live in our country, who are entitled to the protection of our laws, whatever may be the language they speak, we are prepared, on the further consideration for which I asked in the special committee, to accept the suggestion that this is one particular that should be written into the bill of rights over and above the provisions that we have already written into it.
I would be happy at the appropriate moment to suggest the moving of this amendment, or something close to it; but I am afraid I could not accept the amendment presented by the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont in the form in which it is actually drawn.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think those of us who sit on this side of the chamber will appreciate the attempt of the Minister of Justice and those associated with him to meet the position that has been put forward in the amendment by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont. Of course, I am rising now, not to take issue with the submission that is being made-we will look at it; at least, someone will look at it while I am intervening in the debate-but to tell the minister I am extremely pleased with the statement which he made earlier, namely that he could not understand how anyone who refused the right of an interpreter to a witness would be giving a fair hearing to an individual. In fact, I think the minister went on and said that in his opinion it would be a grossly unfair hearing. I was very happy to hear him say that and to know that it is on the record.
But what prompts me to rise again is that even though the Minister of Justice feels strongly about the matter, as he does, and

as strongly as those of us who have advanced the amendment, none the less, as he knows, this would have no bearing whatever upon a commissioner or upon a chairman of a board. The Minister of Justice could be a man with tremendous tolerance, but none the less the chairman of a board could feel otherwise. In fact, that is exactly what happened in the Eastview case. Here the Minister of Justice thinks that this would not be a fair trial, I am sure, having regard to his statement, that he was not aware of the facts.
But there is no doubt, on the other hand, that the individual, the commissioner in this case, was of the view that he was giving a fair trial to this person. I do not think I should pursue the matter any further. The point has been made that the principle of the amendment has been accepted. Whether or not the wording is satisfactory, I am not in a position to say. I hope it will be. I have not seen it and I do not know whether it has been drafted and sent over to us yet, but I would like very much the opportunity of looking at it. However, it is certainly a step in the right direction and I am sure all of us who have been pressing so hard, particularly the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont, will feel satisfied that progress has been made in this direction.


Mr. Martineau:: Would the hon. member permit just one question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I would like to know if in his view the amendment would extend to a witness as well as a person accused before a court or board?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not seen the amendment. Does the hon. member mean our own amendment? I would think it does, yes.


Mr. Rapp:: I am rising to express my appreciation and thanks to the minister for accepting this amendment. As a member of the special committee, this did cause me some concern because it was not covered by the clause. I appreciate the action being taken very much, as one who knows the difficulties of mastering a foreign language. Canada is a country to which thousands of people migrate every year and hon. members will readily appreciate the difficulties they encounter.
While I am on my feet I should like to make a comment about the procedure in the committee at that time. We all went into that committee with open minds and with only one object in view, namely to make the bill as effective as possible. The
minister and the chairman always gave consideration to the amendments which were put forward and when it was felt they could be incorporated in the bill the necessary action was taken.


Mr. Regnier:: I should like to make some remarks pursuant to what was said by the hon. member for Laurier. The attorney general of Ontario, Mr. Kelso Roberts, made a statement which I should like to challenge and condemn when he said that the French language is not official in Ontario. The Quebec act of 1774 could very well have been called the Canada act of 1774 because the limits of the province of Quebec as referred to in that act included Quebec as it is now, Labrador and Ontario as we know it today. The British North America Act did not diminish any of the rights concerning the use of the French language existing under the Quebec act when it was passed in 1867, so I maintain that the French language is official not only in Quebec but in Ontario.
I think it was a very poor show that the attorney general of Ontario should have condoned to a certain degree the decision of Commissioner Yates not to allow a witness to give her evidence in her own language. I think it was a poor show in the first place to have appointed a commissioner who could not understand French to go to the municipality of Eastview without French speaking personnel.


Lionel Chevrier: I have now had the opportunity of looking at the amendment submitted by the Minister of Justice and of giving consideration to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont. I wonder if I can bring further to the attention of the committee the amendment suggested by the Minister of Justice which reads as follows:
(g) Deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings for the determination of his rights or obligations before a court, commission, board or other tribunal if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.
What I should like to say to the minister is that the amendment he has submitted would not meet the three cases I have brought forward unless certain words are taken out. Unless the words "for the determination of his rights or obligations" are taken out it would not apply to witnesses. If those words were taken out, and I suggest they should be, the amendment would then, I think, meet the three cases I have put on record in Hansard. Without those words, the amendment would read:
Deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings before a court.

Human Rights
commission, board or other tribunal if he does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted.
So a witness coming before a tribunal would be protected by the amendment. I think that was the purport of the question put by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister as to whether or not our amendment covered a witness. I was under the impression that it did. Certainly, unless the words I have indicated are taken out I doubt if it does cover the case of a witness, and I wonder whether the Minister of Justice would not reconsider the question in the light of what I have said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would be glad to do that. I am sure there will be further discussion on the matter. The point the hon. gentleman has in mind was in our minds also when we drafted this. I referred in my remarks to the necessity of tying in this provision with proceedings before the court so as to avoid spreading it too wide. We did have in mind the position of witnesses, and considered they would be covered. The provision reads:
Deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings for the determination of his rights and obligations-
Supposing the party defending, or being investigated calls a witness. The witness would then be giving evidence with respect to the proceedings which were being held for the determination of the rights or the obligations of that party and if in the course of giving that evidence in the interest of the party involved the witness required an interpreter it is my tentative opinion, at any rate, that it would be covered because it could be said that the party required the assistance of an interpreter in order that the witness on whose evidence he was relying might give his evidence in a manner understandable to the court.
I appreciate it might be said that this was drawing things rather fine, but we have done it this way to confine it to a person who is really interested in the proceedings in the court and not someone who is not really involved in any way. It does seem to me that this is covered already, but we can consider it further.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the explanation which the minister has given emphasizes the desirability of letting this matter stand. If the minister insists on bringing in an amendment himself I suggest that the hon. gentleman allow the matter to stand in order that it may be clear that the amendment covers the legitimate point we have raised. The words contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont seem to me to cover it precisely. He said:

Deprive a person of the right to have the assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language-
And so on. As this matter is so important, as we are so near to agreement and as we all want to meet the principle involved I suggest we let the matter be carefully drafted and come back to it.


John George Diefenbaker: I think that suggestion is a proper one. This principle has prevailed for many years so far as the courts are concerned. The denial of any person, an accused or a witness, of his right to an interpreter in a court of law is a substantial denial of fundamental justice and as such gives grounds for an appeal.
This goes back to 1916 when in the court of criminal appeal in England a Chinese by the name Lee Kun had been refused or denied the use of an interpreter. He did not understand the English language in which the case was being held. He was convicted and the conviction was squashed. There was no new trial granted because, as hon. gentlemen know, no provision existed at that time in the United Kingdom for a new trial on appeal.
I have seen a number of examples similar to those outlined by the hon. member for Laurier. I think of one case in particular in which the judicial officer refused to consider in any way the right of the individual to speak any language other than the English language. The witness was quite unable to do so. The judicial officer who will also remain unidentified proceeded to excoriate this man for his failure to speak the English language. A conviction was registered. I had something to do with the appeal and it did not take very many minutes before a decision favourable to the appellant was given.
However, the rules in effect as to fundamental justice in this connection do not apply to commissions or boards. In the event that a person is denied an interpreter in a lower court an application by way of prohibition might be launched to assure that the magistrate should not proceed with the case until the opportunity for the witness or accused to have an interpreter was assured. That does not, of course, apply in the case of boards or commissions. There is nothing to guide the chairman or other officials of a board or executive tribunal in assuring the maintenance of fundamental justice.
We have had that in a number of cases. We had that in the Eldorado investigation some years ago in which provision was made by order in council to allow the commissioner to act as he would regardless of whether or not he was within the law. Whatever the

action he took, whether constitutional safeguards were maintained or denied, there was no right of appeal against the action or conduct of that commissioner.
That is the reason why through discussion we bring about in the best traditions of the House of Commons the changes that are necessary. I must say to the hon. member who brought forward this amendment that as soon as I heard it I could not but conclude that it was reasonable, proper and necessary. Even though in so far as cases in court are concerned I feel it would be covered by subclauses (e) and (f); in so far as a commission or executive tribunal is concerned it would not be covered.
I must say that is the essence of parliament in proper operation. It gives me an opportunity to say once more that the special committee that studied this matter was of that nature where, through discussion and consideration, determinations are arrived at for the best interests of all. All that remains now is that we arrive at some amendment that will be generally accepted to meet the consensus of opinion.	[DOT]


Lester Bowles Pearson: In rising to say just a word on this matter I am conscious of the fact that I speak under the handicap-or the advantage, if you like-of not being a lawyer.
I believe it is clear that hon. members of the committee are agreed on the principle of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont. It is an important principle and therefore as the Prime Minister has indicated it is also important to ensure that the principle is embodied in language that will be clear and explicit in accomplishing what we have in mind in putting forward the principle of the amendment.
The Minister of Justice is wise in having given further consideration to this matter and accepting this idea. It is quite true that any normal interpretation of the words "fair hearing" in this bill would seem on the face of it to include what is embodied in this amendment but surely in a matter of this kind it is wise to make assurances doubly sure and to resolve any doubt that might exist. Recent events have shown that there certainly is a doubt in some people's minds.
It is inconceivable to me, as I am sure it is to other hon. members of the committee, that anybody in any circumstances would be denied the right to use either of the two languages of Canada, but there are of course many other languages which are now in common use in Canada. There are many new Canadians who arrive here with languages other than English and French. It will be an assurance and comfort to them to know 79951-0-473
Human Rights
that a principle of this kind appears in the bill of rights concerning their right to use their own language, not only in courts of law but in boards, tribunals, naturalization boards, immigration tribunals, before which they might appear, and even R.C.M.P. investigations, if you like. It will be extended to all these extra-judicial boards and tribunals and this will be covered, I hope, beyond any doubt by the words of an amendment on which we can all agree.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think I have a wording now which is sufficiently broad to cover all the cases, actual or potential, that are in mind. The amendment would read as follows:
(g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.
This then would cover the case of a person who is a party in a technical sense, a person who is a witness in those proceedings, or where it might be said that you cannot bring him under the word "party" in a technical sense, it would cover the case of a person who is involved in such proceedings. Let me read it again, and then I will send over a copy. It would read:
(g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved, or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.
I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that this does cover the case of all our people who may be involved in any way in proceedings before courts, boards, commissions, or tribunals whether he be a party in the technical sense, or a witness, or merely involved in some way which does not come under the technical description of party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This would seem to be satisfactory. It so closely resembles the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, that I wonder whether the minister would give to the hon. member the honour which obviously belongs to him of moving the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman; if the hon. member would care to withdraw his present amendment and move this one we would be very happy.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Will the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to withdraw the amendment he has presented?

Human Rights


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I have the pleasure and the honour to move an amendment to clause 2 to add paragraph (g). I would hope that the Minister of Justice would do me the honour of seconding the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would think it should be seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort.	.


Charles Edward Rea: A seconder is not necessary.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have been using that form.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The amendment would read:
(g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved, or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of this apparent deviation from the rules I wish to join with the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort in seconding the amendment on behalf of this group. We appreciate very much indeed the co-operation among the members on the government side of the house and in the official opposition in the discussion and amendment of this legislation to bring about practices which the C.C.F. have observed for years.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I simply wish to bring to the attention of the minister very briefly a matter about which I read in the Montreal Star not so long ago. I read in the Montreal Star that a lad of 17 was arrested for loitering in a swimming pool and was booked at No. 1 police station in Montreal on a Saturday. He was held until Monday and was brought before the court on Monday. Because it was not convenient for the judge to hear his case, owing to the number of cases coming before him, this lad was taken to Bordeaux prison. The hearing was finally held later on Friday and as a result of the hearing he was fined $5 for loitering. The question I want to ask is this. Here is a case of a lad being practically kept in jail or prison for nearly a week and then being fined $5 for loitering without any opportunity to take advantage of the very principles enunciated in this clause. What protection will this clause give persons who might suffer this injustice?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If he was not charged within the time which the code provides, then he would have his remedy by way of habeas
[The Deputy Chairman.]
corpus, and my answer therefore to the question is that this bill of rights ensures him that remedy by this provision, that no one shall be deprived of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 2 as amended by the committee and the special committee carry?
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
On clause 3-Duties of Minister of Justice.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, yesterday
during the general discussion of the bill I gave the reason why a clause should be included which would authorize the establishment of a parliamentary committee similar to the committee which exists in New Zealand, the success of which, I might add, suggests that a similar procedure might work in any parliament for the benefit of the rights and privileges of individual citizens. In this contention I am supported by the submission made by the Seventh Day Adventists, which was read by the Rev. Darren L. Michael, who said:
To sum up the views of the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Canada which warmly applauds the Prime Minister for taking the initiative in introducing such a measure the following points are emphasized with respect to Bill C-79, "an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms" which it is felt would greatly strengthen the effectiveness of this bill:
I am not going to read all of the recommendations, but I will read recommendation No. 6:
6.	A standing parliamentary committee be established to give continuing examination with reference to the operation of this proposed act in the light of changing circumstances, and
7.	This committee could draft, and parliament accept, a preamble to the bill-
Which was, of course, accepted. I am also supported very warmly in this amendment by no other than the Prime Minister himself. I refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister in 1945, as reported in Hansard at page 2460. Among other things he said:
In the United Kingdom it has been found necessary to set up a committee in this regard,-
I might say it was a question regarding the establishment of the national emergency bill. I continue:
-and I should like to see a similar committee appointed by this house.
Such a committee would report to the house from time to time on all orders in council passed where there is a matter of principle in issue and where the question of delegated power arises. Where legislative power is conferred, the committee would make the necessary criticisms of

orders passed by civil servants under the powers granted by legislation enacted by parliament.
Members of the house would be given an opportunity to serve. There should be no difficulty about the government having a majority in the committee. Its members would be charged with noting any breaches of parliamentary privileges and democratic rights; in fact, in orders in council it would be a watchdog in the preservation of our democratic rights.
That was in 1945. In 1951 the Prime Minister had this to say in speaking about the proposition to establish a committee on civil rights:
My suggestion, sir, is that in view of the importance of civil liberties and their preservation, there be set up a standing committee of the House of Commons on civil rights ...
This committee would correlate information regarding interference with civil liberties as they take place. It would give publicity thereto. It would make Canadians everywhere cognizant and constantly aware of invasions of our basic liberties and of the inadequacy in many cases of our present laws in guarding those liberties. It would make Canadians freedom conscious, for this committee would provide parliament with a watching brief over freedom regardless of what may be the distribution of powers under the British North America Act.
I do not intend to go on much longer, Mr. Chairman, because the proposal has been discussed at length during the general discussion of the bill of rights and also extensively discussed in the special committee. I feel confident that the Prime Minister must have a sympathetic outlook toward this proposal. I am offering this amendment in the hope that the Prime Minister will accept it unless he has changed his mind since 1951. I am quite satisfied he will do what I think is the correct thing to do and accept this amendment. I think a committee such as is contemplated in the amendment will be able to make a substantial contribution to the bill of rights. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's:
That clause 3 be amended by adding thereto:
(a)	Reports of inconsistency from the Minister of Justice shall be referred to an appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
(b)	All petitions to the House of Commons which purport to be based on the Canadian bill of rights shall be referred to an appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons on human rights and fundamental freedoms. The committee shall have power to report these petitions from time to time to the house, together with its opinions and observations thereon.
All I can say is that the adoption of this amendment would greatly strengthen the bill of rights.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I recollect very well the circumstances under which on a number of occasions I suggested in the house that a standing committee of the House of Commons should be set up to act, as the hon. member said, as a watchdog in order 79951-0-473J
Human Rights
to guard against encroachments on and invasions of freedoms within the jurisdiction of parliament. I believe this is an objective which will be attained in due course provided the House of Commons, which is the master of its own rules, will bring about the setting up of such a committee. Through the years I have advocated that and I am unchanged in my viewpoint that we should all become freedom conscious, that the tendency and trend toward passing orders in council with almost prodigal disregard of human freedoms should end, and to that end that a standing committee of the house should be set up.
I still believe that parliament should give consideration to that matter. The means of bringing about a change in the rules is, of course, provided for under the traditions of parliament. I do not, however, believe that the setting up of such a committee should be incorporated in a bill of rights as such. I agree with the hon. member that it would be most desirable to bring about the setting up of such a standing committee. At the next session of the house I hope that the committee on rules, which has been in existence during the present session, will be constituted at the earliest possible date and that when it is constituted the direction of the thinking of that committee will in one respect, among others, be toward reaching a recommendation to the House of Commons for a standing committee along the lines indicated by the hon. member. That is a course that I believe to be very beneficial.
There was a time when orders in council did not find their way before the House of Commons. Indeed, as I recall, there was one order in council passed in September of 1945, the existence of which was denied in November, 1945, although I knew it existed from information I had received. Finally, in February, 1946, Mr. King, the then prime minister, announced that the particular order in council had been forgotten by the minister of justice. That was the order in council that swept aside habeas corpus, that denied to the individual the right to those constitutional safeguards which we are now incorporating in the bill of rights and the preservation of which I hope will be assured under the bill of rights now before the house.
While the House of Commons must always be the master of the course which it will follow, I think it would be the desire of all members of the house that when the committee on rules is set up at the next session it should give the fullest consideration to this matter, and I hope that hon. gentlemen will approve the setting up of such a committee as is suggested in the amendment in

Human Rights
order to ensure that there shall be no derogation from, no diminution of, the freedoms which we are now setting forth as declaratory of our purposes and aims under a bill of rights.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fort William is one that was introduced by him with respect to former clause 2 of the bill as presented on second reading. I think the hon. member is to be congratulated on the initiative he has shown in the formulation of this proposal.
To fully understand its worth, I think one must have an appreciation of what took place in connection with clause 3 now before us. The original clause in the bill was certainly not in this form, and the suggestions and improvements made were as a result of the suggestions offered by members of this party in that committee. The committee will recall that when the clause was presented on second reading the Leader of the Opposition objected to a change in the wording of the bill, as contained in the present draft in comparison with the bill put forward in 1959. At that time the clause read that the Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the governor in council, examine every proposed regulation submitted in draft form to the clerk of the privy council and every bill introduced in the House of Commons in order to ensure whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this part.
That was the way the bill stood in 1959. When the bill came before us this year on second reading instead of the word "ensure" there was the word "ascertain", which placed a higher obligation on the actions of the minister than is contained at present and as was contained in the bill when presented on second reading. The Leader of the Opposition thought that the clause lacked sanction, that the clause had no teeth, that it did not impose any duty on the Minister of Justice that was not then present.
Surely the Minister of Justice, he argued, would be expected to examine all draft regulations, and indeed all regulations and all government bills to see whether they conformed in terms with the bill of rights or whether they were inconsistent. There were no additional functions imposed on the Minister of Justice, the Leader of the Opposition argued. When the bill went to the committee, I think I must say that there was a general disposition on the part of all members to recognize that the clause needed something, that the clause meant nothing as

it stood. All members of the committee did not support the amendment of the hon. member for Fort William. As a matter of fact, the amendment was defeated on a division as between parties represented in the committee, that is excluding the representative of the C.C.F. who was not present.
Now, the minister, after being pressed by the members of the committee, once the resolution of the hon. member for Fort William had been disposed of, came back to the committee with the addition of the words that are now in the clause, that he shall report any such inconsistencies to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity. Speaking on behalf of our party in that committee I said that was a welcome advance made by the minister. However, it did not meet the full views of the members of the Liberal party. It represented a disposition on the part of the minister, at long last, to recognize that there were views outside of the ministry of justice that deserved attention. It was an encouraging display of flexibility which, up until that time, had not been forthcoming.
The minister had made an advance. We agreed that all draft regulations should not come before the house because those were matters as between members of the cabinet. In so far as any government bill was concerned, there would be no doubt and there is an obligation, by implication, on the minister to report any inconsistencies in so far as the bill of rights is concerned with regard to any bill which may be introduced in this house.
We also were inclined to suggest to the minister that it was not satisfactory to say he should report any such inconsistencies to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity. I believe I raised the question that the words "at the first convenient opportunity" were not sufficient and should we not say so many days after the opening of parliament the minister should make a report. I must say, in fairness to the minister, that he satisfied me that in the first year we ought to see, by trial and error, what the situation might be. It was agreed, therefore, that we would leave the clause in its present form on that understanding. We will be interested in knowing next session, if there is going to be a next session of this parliament, if the minister has been able to examine all the inconsistencies in existing legislation and report the same to the house, together with inconsistent regulations.
The amendment of the hon. member for Fort William, I think, should be accepted now. The Prime Minister spoke in the



I960

[Stage Direction]
absence of the Minister of Justice, who undoubtedly needed, as I do now need, sustenance-I am talking about food. The minister was out on that account, I take it, and the Prime Minister replied. I presume he spoke for the minister as well.
Seme hon. Members: Oh, oh.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not so sure because the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have not agreed on this bill. The Prime Minister today recognized there were some valuable suggestions made by the opposition. He accepted them. In fact, he told us a while ago, when we were dealing with the resolution of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, that he was struck by it at once. What occurred to me was that last night, the Prime Minister said he had read all the evidence, and if he had read all the evidence, then surely he must have seen last evening the merit of the recommendation made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont.
However, that is an aside. The Prime Minister is a busy man and I am not going to hold him to account for that inconsistency.


John George Diefenbaker: What inconsistency?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister said he had read all the evidence. He said today the moment the hon. member introduced his amendment he recognized its validity. I would have thought if the Prime Minister had read all the evidence, he would have seen the validity of the amendment before it was introduced in this committee. However, perhaps I am placing too great an obligation on the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: And perhaps my hon. friend requires that sustenance to which he referred earlier.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps that is right. However, if I did that perhaps the Prime Minister would not be as inclined to consider some of the recommendations we are making to improve in this bill of rights, which was drafted by Mr. Driedger, but the authorship of which now belongs to this whole House of Commons rather than to one individual.
In the first part of this amendment, the hon. member for Fort William asks that reports of inconsistency from the Minister of Justice be referred to an appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons on human rights and fundamental freedoms. The hon. member for Fort William was right when he said that the Prime Minister, at least at one time, thought there should be a standing committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is true,
Human Rights
the Prime Minister did. I recall reading in Hansard that he did make such a recommendation, and I wondered why, since he became Prime Minister, he did not set up such a committee in 1957. However, there were many things that the Prime Minister assured us he would do that he did not do, and I presume that has been because he has been preoccupied.
In any event, I pass over that quickly so as not to provoke any comment by the right, hon. Prime Minister. But we do not need to delay until next session; the hon. member's proposal can be accepted now. This house is master of its own rules. I know that normally if we want to set up a standing committee there is a particular procedure to which, under our standing orders, we must resort. But the house is master of its own destiny and its own rules, and if we pass and accept this amendment now we thereby set up a standing committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
That is the proposal, and I ask the Prime Minister to accept that proposal, because it is in keeping with his declared wishes, when he stood in a private capacity as a member of this house. There will be no difficulty, because if we wait till next session we are only postponing the day and only adding to our work next year. We would have this standing committee set up so that the Minister of Justice who, in the intervening period, is going to study all these inconsistencies, will have some body to whom he could come and before whom he could place these inconsistencies.
Surely the place to do this is in a bill of rights. The Prime Minister said it would be improper to include the setting up of a standing committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms in this bill. I say to the Prime Minister that this is the appropriate place to do it, in this bill of rights. Let this be the vehicle through which will be born a new select standing committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
There is an additional reason why that should be done. That is evident in (b) of the amendment. The hon. member for Fort William proposes that there should be an opportunity to the citizen, those who are not members of parliament, either this or the other chamber, to make petitions to some body in the matter of an abridgement of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The hon. gentleman, having carefully studied the practice in New Zealand and Denmark, makes the proposal that is provided in paragraph (b). He says, Let all petitions to the House of Commons which purport to be based on the Canadian bill of rights be referred to this standing committee of the House of Commons,

Human Rights
and the committee will have the power to report these petitions from time to time to the house, so that we will have a report from the Minister of Justice and an opportunity of presenting petitions by the subject to this committee.
Through this committee the Canadian people will have an opportunity of directing their petitions on matters having to do with the bill of rights to this House of Commons. It seems to me that the hon. member for Fort William has done us a great service in this proposal. I say, let us not wait until next session; let us incorporate this suggestion now in the present bill, thereby making it even a better document.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the process of reformation knows no limits. It is really wonderful to sit here and behold the degree of change in the thinldng of the hon. gentlemen opposite.


An hon. Member:: After 25 years.


John George Diefenbaker: It is one of the marvels of modern-day parliamentary performance to listen to this hon. gentleman speaking of the support that he now gives to a suggestion that I first made in 1945 and repeated on a number of occasions subsequently. It would have been effected then, but the hon. gentleman and those associated with him said there was no need for such a committee being set up, at a time when fundamental freedoms were being interfered with regularly in so many fields. That ended when this government took over in 1957.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Since that date no statute has passed parliament or no order in council has been passed by the executive council which in any way has abrogated, interfered with, diminished or reduced the fundamental rights of individuals. That is one of the steps forward that has taken place; one of the things that we promised we would bring about, and have brought about.
That does not mean that occasions may not arise when as a result of action taken there might be some interference with fundamental freedoms, some application coming before parliament. The Minister of Justice is charged to examine all applications that come before parliament and to:
-examine every proposed regulation submitted in draft form to the clerk of the privy council pursuant to the Regulations Act and every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons. in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.

It could not be clearer than that. If in consequence of a report, if even in anticipation that that possibility may arise at any time in the future, I believe consideration could be given by the house to the setting up of a standing committee along the lines that I have advocated through the years and now is accepted and adopted by the hon. member for Fort William and those associated with him.
I have already given the assurance that if at the next session of parliament there is any desire on the part of the rules committee-and I hope there will be; and I hope the hon. member for Fort William is on the rules committee, and that can be assured by a simple application to the whip of the opposition, who will be able to pass that information on to the Leader of the Opposition -if the hon. gentleman is on that committee and makes representations in this connection, I hope all hon. members on that committee will adhere to the suggestion made and that a permanent standing committee will be set up.
After all, we have a standing committee on the library of parliament and on the rest of the house-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Put this alongside those.


John George Diefenbaker: -and I would think a standing committee on freedoms would be appropriate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I was pleased that a member of the Liberal party moved the amendment that is before the committee but I want to say that I was even more pleased with the statement that has been made by the Prime Minister. I would think that with the assurance of the Prime Minister that this procedure could be followed, the rules committee could consider this question and, if appropriate, make a recommendation to the house so that this committee could be clothed within the rules of the house. I think that is a good suggestion.
I think the Liberal party is performing a useful function by putting forward all these amendments. However, in the light of their own previous record I think they can appear too rigid in the public mind if they do not readily and quickly accept this assurance from the Prime Minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We went further than the Prime Minister. You could not have been here.


Hazen Robert Argue: I know. You are so far ahead of your past that you hope it will be forgotten.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are not ahead at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the position of the Liberal party, and I congratulate them for it. One thing about the Liberal party is that they are always a liberal party when they are in opposition; but give them a few days in government, when there is work to do, and it is a different matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: However, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the statement that has been made by the Prime Minister. I believe that the rules committee of the house, will take this under advisement and bring in a positive recommendation, and I think we could accept this as the opinion of the house as to the course that should be taken in order to bring about the objectives of the amendment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Assin-iboia has joined us again to demonstrate his well-known flexibility. I regret to say that on this occasion we cannot join him in this flexibility for reasons I hope to indicate. The process of reformation which continues to give the Prime Minister so much amusement is nothing to the process of procrastination of which the Prime Minister is now giving us another glaring illustration, because way back in 1945 the right hon. gentleman said he wanted this done, and now we are giving him the chance to do it. The government has been in office three years during which period, presumably, they still wanted this done. The Prime Minister has just told us that during this period of purity there was no such thing as a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms and therefore no such procedure as this was required. I could talk at length on that score but I would be out of order because some of these matters are now before the courts.
The Prime Minister has said: we shall do it next session; we shall do it by the rules committee; we shall set up a committee on human rights by the same process as we set up a committee on the restaurant. That is not good enough when we are discussing in this House of Commons the promulgation of Canadian rights and liberties. This bill is the place in which to make provision for this committee. If the Prime Minister feels as strongly now as he has indicated he felt about violations of human rights by orders in council being passed and that sort of thing, then surely this is the time to ensure in so far as legislation can ensure it that if this kind of thing happens again it can be examined by a committee of this house and the necessary action taken. Why should it be a committee set up by a decision of the rules committee along with the restaurant committee and the library committee? The
Human Rights
committee should be established by the bill of rights itself and the committee will be given prestige and sanctity by enshrinement in this bill.
Surely the Prime Minister must realize that not only should this be done now but that it should be done in this particular way to justify in his own mind the importance which he has always attached to this matter since 1945.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to point out a very good reason why this committee of the House of Commons should not be set out in a statute. Are we going to pass a statute which will require to be passed by the Senate in order to become law, and is the Senate going to participate in the setting up of a commons committee? That is something which I think would be a departure from every constitutional principle that has ever been accepted in this country.
In other words, there is no limit to the changing reformation on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite who are now asking the House of Commons to place in a statute a reference to the setting up of a House of Commons committee which will require the support of the Senate in order to achieve it. I think that in itself is sufficient to answer the arguments of the hon. gentlemen.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister has suddenly hit on a new device-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I raised this in the special committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the Prime Minister assure this committee that this procedure has never been adopted in the past by legislation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can you.
Amendment (Mr. Badanai) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 86.


Hazen Robert Argue: The setting up of a committee of this house to act in a watchdog role would undoubtedly help assure the enforcement of this bill of rights. What I want to suggest now is something in a more positive vein; not some action that can be taken after the law has been broken but, rather, a positive step to make certain as far as we can that the law is not abrogated.
I am suggesting that within the Department of Justice there should be established a human rights division. I feel that this legislation which parliament is in the process of passing is important legislation. It has the positive support of the Canadian people, and a human rights division within the Department of Justice could do a great deal in promoting the ideas set forth in this

Human Rights
measure and providing additional means of bringing these rights to the attention of Canadian students and to the attention of the public generally. If it is brought from time to time to the attention of the government that there are infractions of the law or that infractions are about to take place, perhaps officers of this proposed division could do a public relations job of talking to the people who are involved and seeing whether they can get them to amend their ways, and seeing to it that Canadians have the rights which are set forth in this legislation.
Another duty of such a human rights division I suggest would be to assist the minister in the examination of regulations and bills to make certain that none were in conflict with this law. I think a human rights division in the Department of Justice would keep this whole idea of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms alive in the minds of the people of the country so that we will not pass from discussing this bill into a general negative atmosphere when everybody is saying: "Is the law being broken; if so, let us take action." That is important but let us do something positive. Let us have a human rights division to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms and provide an avenue of education for Canadians as to their basic rights and the need for all Canadians to conform not only to the letter of the law but to the spirit of the law. I therefore move:
That clause 3 be amended by adding the letter "a" after the numeral "3" in line one, and by adding thereto the following subparagraph (b):
(b) There shall be established within the Department of Justice a special human rights division for the purpose of:
(i)	assisting the Minister of Justice in his examination of regulations and bills pursuant to paragraph (a) of this clause.
(ii)	initiating studies and procedures with a view to improving the general observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement with the amendment moved by the hon. member. It seems to me that this is a useful and constructive amendment and we will be glad to support it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, this matter was raised in the special committee and has been considered by us both then and since. It arises out of a suggestion made in Professor Scott's presentation to the committee, as I see it, and I imagine that is where the hon. member for Assiniboia obtained his inspiration. What I pointed out to the special committee it seems to me applies equally now. That is, what we would be doing here is to attempt to write in part of the detail of the organization of the Department of Justice

in a bill of rights. If you are going to do that you have to do things completely. You have to provide for the appointment of officers, the payment of salaries and all the other things that go with the setting up of a human rights division.
It could be said that it is apparent from the nature of the amendment that it is really only a pious hope and my hon. friends have not got down to the bones of what would be necessary to make it a reality. The amendment would have no practical effect if left in its present form.
May I now point out what is perhaps a more fundamental objection. That is, that this is going to be the responsibility of the Minister of Justice by virtue now of the express provisions of clause 3 of the bill we are now considering. I think it would be premature to attempt now to say in detail how the minister will exercise that responsibility. He is going to have to examine every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons.
He is going to have to examine all regulations in draft form, and regulations as defined in the Regulations Act include orders and a great number of instruments.
This is going to be, in.my view, a heavy obligation on the part of the Department of Justice. It might well be that we will require additional personnel to discharge this obligation. I think I should make it clear that in some respects it is only an extension but a very broad one of the duties the department has now. It might therefore require additional personnel for the department and on the other hand we may find we can discharge it with the present personnel in the department.
I therefore think it would be completely premature to write into a statute now a matter which is really only dealing with the method by which the minister with the assistance of his departmental officials will discharge the onus the statute places on him. I think it is premature until we have had some experience in this field in working out the way in which the report to parliament should be made, for instance, and a number of other matters that will be covered by the regulation or regulations contemplated in this clause itself.
If we were required to set up a human rights division now, that, as I say, means special personnel and of course special clerical assistance which would mean setting up a new branch the size and extent of which we would not be in a position to judge and committing us to additional expenditures to operate that branch at a time when we do not know whether that expenditure would be justified.

Furthermore the organization we developed might need to be changed from time to time. It seems to me, therefore, the only reasonable course is to let us develop experience and see what is necessary to discharge this obligation and then when we know that, if it is necessary or desirable we can come to parliament and ask for the necessary changes in the Department of Justice Act, if such changes are required.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, we moved this amendment because we think it is a step that should be taken. I do not think the minister's arguments remove the need for such course of action. The minister said this would require special personnel and clerical staff. That is certainly one of the purposes of passing it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But you have not made any provision for that.


Hazen Robert Argue: This could be done a little later in the legislation. This is not impossible. If the government wanted to do that it would be easy for it to bring in the necessary amendments to provide by regulation for the carrying out of this step and it would be done. Of course, the reason the minister is opposed to the amendment has nothing to do with draftsmanship. It is merely because the government is not yet prepared to take this step.
The minister said this is only a special way of carrying out the functions of the department and the minister as set forth in clause 3. We think it is much more than that. We think it would in fact be an extension of activity in regard to the support of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
This amendment has two parts. The first is that the human rights division obviously would assist the minister in his examination of regulations and bills pursuant to clause 3 as it now stands. The second part of the amendment is that the human rights division would intitiate studies and procedures with a view to improving the general observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Canada. Therefore, what we have in mind is much more than the very necessary but limited scope of clause 3. I think that the passage of such an amendment and the establishment of such a human rights division are necessary to strengthen the whole purpose of this legislation, and that if we have within the Department of Justice a human rights division in the days ahead the provisions of this bill would be more securely established, not only in the law itself but in the practice and in the attitudes of Canadian citizens. I think this kind of step will inevitably have to be taken. Now is the time to take it.
79951-0-474
Human Rights


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it will inevitably have to be taken, then it should be taken in the proper way. Bills setting up departments and authorizing staff require resolutions because they impose upon the government the obligation of spending money to carry out the statutory provision which is introduced. We, therefore, could not do a thing like this or commit ourselves to do a thing like this without a resolution. That is why I say it should not be inserted in the bill of rights at this time because it is not the kind of provision that you put in a bill of rights. You do not put in a bill of rights a provision to organize or re-organize the Department of Justice.
In addition, I point out that the Saskatchewan bill of rights, I assume, was passed with the intent that it should be an effective measure for creating consciousness and awareness and the enforcement and protection of human rights in Saskatchewan. There is not a single word in that statute as to the organization of the attorney general's department or setting up any division in that department. I hope my hon. friend is not going to say that the attorney general's department is thus less able to carry out any obligation in Saskatchewan that it should have, or any interest that it should take in the bill of rights. Unless my hon. friend is going to criticize the government of his own province of Saskatchewan, may I suggest that they in this respect followed the proper course of not inserting in the bill of rights those things which should not be there.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the minister has a technical argument. I think the proposition in this amendment is a good one. As far as Saskatchewan is concerned, I think the government of that province is to be congratulated on having initiated a bill of rights as long ago as 1947. It may well be that this kind of provision should be in the law in Saskatchewan. On this I do not pose as an authority in any way at all. It may be that if-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member is posing as an authority here.


Hazen Robert Argue: Of course; I am a member of the House of Commons and it is my duty to put forth a proposition that I feel, if provided for in legislation, would be of advantage to the Canadian nation. Because the Saskatchewan government does something or fails to do something it does not mean that I am required to go along with them in what they are doing or not doing. I have always taken the position that in this House of Commons the members of this group speak

Human Rights
for the C.C.F. party nationally. We are encouraged by the good work done in Saskatchewan. The people of that province would be the first to agree that improvements could be made in Saskatchewan.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Could anything be said which could more definitely prove the truth of what the Prime Minister has said about the great conversion than what we are witnessing in this committee where we have had one amendment piled on another in order to carry out certain things? I think I can only express my view by paraphrasing what I believe was expressed by Swift:
For larger fleas have smaller fleas Upon their backs to bite 'em;
And these again have other fleas And so ad infinitum.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question? Amendment negatived: Yeas, 16; nays, 70.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Short title.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to point out that the suggestion was made by members of this party in the committee that, having in mind the intention of the government with regard to portrayal, or public display, of the main portions of this declaration, that the short title now contained in clause 4, and formerly clause 1, should be removed from that position in which it was when the bill was presented for second reading and placed toward the end of the bill, or in part 1, so that children, school teachers, those in churches and elsewhere who would see the declaration would not be confronted with any unnecessary introductory, explanatory or legal language not having a purpose connected with the main reasons for the legislation. I think it was wise for the minister to accept the suggestion, and I think he will agree as we look at it, that it is in a better place than it was originally.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I agree.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Savings.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, on second reading of this bill an hon. member argued that there could be no successful contention made that in clause 2 of the bill as presented for second reading there was any invasion of provincial powers, notwithstanding what was said about the word "Canada" or the words of "enjoyment of property"; also, notwithstanding the very able argument put forward in The Canadian Bar Review by Professor Louis- Phillippe Pigeon

of Laval University, who was concerned about the geographic application of the word "Canada" and the meaning of the word "property" in its unrestricted form as conveying to his mind an invasion of provincial powers.
The Minister of Justice will recall that in the committee there was considerable discussion on this point. The member for Belle-chasse joined with myself and others who spoke in expressing, at any rate, the view that clause 2 as drawn at least was doubtful in its full implications in this particular; that nothing could be lost by taking steps to see that the intent as stated by the Prime Minister was respected with legal effect in the act.
When the Prime Minister introduced the bill he quite properly said that the intention was that we should confine what we do to matters within section 91 of the British North America Act. It was pointed out in response to this observation that the courts will not look at what the Prime Minister says or what any hon. member of the house says because in judicial interpretation it is not open to the courts, for the purpose of ascertaining meaning, to examine what was said in the debates of parliament.
For that reason and others it was suggested, first of all by the hon. member for Belle-chasse, that there should be provision made in old clause 2, now clause 1, for the use of phrases that would indicate that we were only dealing with matters within our competence. However, the suggestion having been made that this might be done in the preamble, it was then agreed by the hon. member for Bellechasse, the Minister of Justice and others, that perhaps that was the place to put it.
Although I am not satisfied with the actual wording in the English text of the preamble, I believe that once we bring the words in the English text in conformity with the meaning clearly and unmistakably provided in the French text that will be ample authority for feeling that we have clearly reserved our position so far as powers are concerned. I would argue that to say in the preamble, "shall reflect the respect of parliament for the limits of its constitutional authority" would clearly safeguard our concern in this matter.
But the Minister of Justice caused me to wonder as to his real intentions when he argued, following presentation of the amendment by the hon. member for Assiniboia, that he could not accept that amendment because it was clearly in violation of provincial rights and it could not be argued that the reference to limitation of powers in the preamble really delimited in any way

any of the functions or any of the declarations sought to be asserted in the present clause 1.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I never said any such thing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am just saying that is my impression. The Leader of the Opposition and I recall that the minister did make that statement. He may have intended something else but he certainly used words that are open to that interpretation. Whether or not that is the case, and I am not now blaming the minister or pursuing the point I just made, let us be clear about this. I am satisfied that under the rules of interpretation the courts may look at any word in the operative part of the act and say that it means such and such in the light of what is contained in the preamble. The preamble cannot enact but the use of words in the preamble can explain the meaning of words in the operative sections.
But because I am concerned about the minister's observation, because I do want to see this legislation as effective as possible so there can be no doubt about the matter, leaving the preamble precisely as it now is subject to clarification of words, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont:
That clause 5, section 1, be amended as follows:
That the following words shall be added after the word ''act'' in line 16 "nor to apply beyond the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada."


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting to observe the about-face of the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why always
attribute motives? Can you not discuss things objectively?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Most certainly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, you cannot.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can only suggest that my hon. friend, having made a number of accusations, insinuations and innuendoes in the course of his remarks throughout the debate on this bill, is showing a rather remarkable sensitivity to a statement of the facts. In the committee the hon. member expressed it as his opinion that this matter would be adequately taken care of by the words in the preamble.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member says it is now his opinion that this is not adequate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say
that was my opinion. I said that in order to make sure, because of the words used by the
79951-0-474J
Human Rights
minister-would the minister allow me to quote the words, which have been found by the Leader of the Opposition?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have them here, page 7423 of Hansard. I said at that time:
Another objection is that whatever the hon. member for Essex East or others may say about the proposed amendment, it does get us into the field of provincial jurisdiction. Whatever words you may put in the preamble indicating your intention to confine the bill to federal jurisdiction, it is, as I understand it, a law of interpretation that if, notwithstanding an expression of intent in a preamble, you introduce into that part of the bill that has legislative effect a provision which clearly goes beyond the intention expressed in the preamble then it is the section of the bill itself to which effect shall be given and not the words of the preamble.
The meaning of these words is very different from the interpretation which the hon. member gave them a few moments ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is, of course, a clear rule of interpretation that the courts in applying statutes must have regard to the effective words of the legislative provision and that you cannot by a mere declaration in a preamble pretend, and have the courts give effect to your pretence, that you have limited the confines and the effect of your legislation if your legislation itself clearly goes beyond the declaration of intention in the preamble. That is why we have been so careful in drafting the bill not to go beyond the field of federal legislative competence. That is why we have resisted so strongly all the efforts of my hon. friends in the Liberal and C.C.F. parties which would in our view have had the effect of taking the bill of rights beyond the field of federal legislative competence.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks on this subject, in the special committee the hon. member for Essex East was satisfied that all we should do was to put words of intent into the preamble and, indeed, he resisted in the committee a suggestion advanced by a member of the Conservative party that such words should in fact be included in clause 5.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I beg your pardon, I did not resist. I suggested I was satisfied with the preamble and I did not resist any such suggestion. I should like to know where I did.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Here is the hon. member on record at page 582 of the committee proceedings. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way first made these remarks:
There has been some concern about where the jurisdiction of this bill went, and there was a suggestion in the earlier clauses that if there was need to clarify the matter in any way-and I am not saying that there is but that if that were

Human Rights
to be considered, clause 5 might be a convenient place to put that in, to show that it applied to those things within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. If it was felt there was a need to clarify that position, it would seem to be a suitable place to have it inserted.
To which I replied:
I think that is an interesting and valuable suggestion, perhaps taken in conjunction with the suggestion that there might also be a short phrase in the preamble. This would be in the act itself, and it might be a very useful way to make it clear to the courts what the intention of the legislature is.
Then my hon. friend immediately replied:
If it were put in the preamble, that would take care of it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, and that is my contention now,


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what I said, that the hon. gentleman in committee indicated he was resisting the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that this should be put in clause 5 of the bill itself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nonsense.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not saying that the hon. gentleman's changed opinion is wrong, I am merely pointing out what the facts are. I am not suggesting he is wrong in changing his opinion, I am merely pointing it out as a fact and suggesting to the committee that the same credit now be given to the hon. member for Essex East for having changed his views and shown that flexibility that he has attributed to-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I never said the minister was flexible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -us when we have changed our views. I think that this matter is taken care of adequately in the preamble, but as I indicated in the committee I thought the suggestion that the provision be inserted in clause 5 was an interesting and valuable one and that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was deserving of the most serious consideration. I am glad to find the hon. member for Essex East now shares the views of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
Therefore, consistent with my previous position, I am quite prepared to accept the principle of this amendment. However, may I point out to the committee that the amendment, as drawn, is in the negative. It is suggested to me that that is not a desirable principle to incorporate into bills by way of direction to the courts. Indeed, it is my view that the insertion of this negative form amounts almost to an impossible direction to the courts because how can the courts in Canada decide they would construe a statute

extending beyond the legislative competence of Canada. This is directing them to avoid doing something which it would be improper for them to do in any event. I suggest the amendment be phrased in the affirmative, by adding a subclause 3 to clause 5 with the marginal note "jurisdiction of parliament", to the effect that the provisions of Part I shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. In that form, we will be quite prepared to accept the amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister for his remarkable display of flexibility and the very generous words in which that flexibility was noted. I leave to him the decision as to who shall have the honour of making the motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall ask one of my colleagues to move the amendment.


Jacques Flynn: I think before this amendment is moved, the hon. member for Essex East will need the consent of the committee to withdraw his amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I move:
That clause 5 be amended by adding a new subparagraph 3:
(3) The provisions of Part I shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, only a few words to say how sorry I am that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) was less generous towards my colleague the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) as he was to me when he let me submit an amendment. At all events, I want to say how very pleased we are that this amendment is accepted, because our position has remained unchanged from the moment when the original bill was put before us.
If the minister will recall, in the original bill there was no reference at all to the Canadian parliament's legislative jurisdiction, and it was only after we had repeatedly raised the matter at the committee that the Minister of Justice agreed to include in a preamble the very important principle that will eliminate all uncertainties from a constitutional point of view. Now, after the amendment of the hon. member for Essex East, we are very happy to see that principle recognized.
Before resuming my seat, may I remind hon. members that, ever since we took up this bill, we have been consistent in our

effort to eliminate every uncertainty as regards any interference with provincial powers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, only one
remark, at this stage, to inform the house that the amendment was first suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne).
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to express the support of this group for this amendment which is further proof that we have always been consistent since we urged upon the Liberal government in 1946 the necessity for a bill of rights.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 as amended agreed to.
On clause 6

War Measures Act.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, clause 6
is the one that is concerned with the War Measures Act, which is included in this bill of rights, and which is amended by this clause. This is a very important clause of the bill and we propose to move an amendment to it. I expressed the opinion on second reading of this bill that in underlining the importance of this clause of the bill perhaps human rights and fundamental freedoms-I could take out the word "perhaps"-fundamental freedoms and human rights need greater protection in a situation in which the War Measures Act is operative than in any other situation.
I quoted Professor Lower in that connection when he affirmed that viewpoint, as he has on so many occasions and as he did recently in the committee. I do not propose to repeat what I said on that occasion. But I would like to refer to the importance that was attached to this particular amendment by some of the witnesses who appeared before the special committee and to quote one sentence or two from what these witnesses said about it. When Professor Scott appeared before the special committee he had this to say, as reported on page 38 of the evidence:
-I am saying that this bill lays it down in black and white that if the War Measures Act is proclaimed, these rights no longer stand in the way of the enactment of the War Measures Act; and we have not got that statement in the law at the moment. This might, in fact-
This amendment:
-weaken our position under the War Measures Act. Maybe the War Measures Act is at the moment more restricted by the principles of human rights than it will be if paragraph (5) of clause 6 is made law. Frankly, I am frightened of that.
We did not go as far as that; in fact, we did not take that position in regard to this
Human Rights
amendment. We thought, and expressed our thought, that this amendment was an improvement, so far as it went, but that it did not go nearly far enough to deal with threats to rights and liberties in time of war or apprehended war, because we all know that wheq. arms clash laws sometimes cease to protect as they do in normal times.
This matter was discussed before the special committee, not only by Professor Scott but by Professor Lower himself. It is a matter to which he has given a great deal of consideration over the years and about which he has written much. He had this to say, as reported on page 318 of the evidence:
This clause, it seems to me, giving parliament-
And this is the amendment he was talking about:
-the power to resolve that the declaration be revoked, does not mean a thing. It fust does not mean a thing because, of course, the government of the day, under that clause, will do as it likes and parliament will obediently follow it, especially in a time of hysteria such as wartime.
I would think today, when within our own country we are relatively peaceful and there are no particular difficulties coming forward, our civil liberties are not in too much danger. I must say I do not find any great complaint about the way things go on.
Then he said later:
It is not in peacetime that our civil liberties are in any overly great danger: it is in wartime, or other such emergencies.
That, of course, is when we need protection most-as experience has shown. When Professor Cohen was questioned about this matter in his evidence, on page 396 he said this:
May I give you my conclusions in two seconds, Mr. Chairman. Let me draw my balance sheet about this bill.
Then he mentioned some points against the bill. His second point was:
-the inadequate consideration of the role of the War Measures Act.
Mr. Mundell, on page 505, took the same position generally when he said this in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Essex East:


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Mundell, have you any comment to make on clause 6 of the bill?


Mr.   Mundell@: I would say that clause 6 is an improvement to the War Measures Act, but of comparatively, probably, little practical importance.
The present War Measures Act comes into force on a proclamation of the governor in council- which is the government, really-and stays in force until a further proclamation is issued. Parliament could at any time, of course, pass a statute repealing the War Measures Act and declaring it to be of no force and effect.
This provision-
That is the amendment we are discussing:
-permits parliament-the two houses acting together-to pass legislation making the War Measures Act ineffective. To that extent it is an expectation and aids parliamentary control. The likelihood of its being used is, I think, slight.

Human Rights
That is why, I say that while we think this particular amendment has some value when it states:
Sections 3, 4 and 5-
Of the War Measures Act:
-shall come into force only upon the issue of a proclamation of the governor in council declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists.
Then it says:
-shall be laid before parliament forthwith after its issue, or, if parliament is then not sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
Then parliament can, in its wisdom, take action in respect of the proclamation. I think, as I have said, that that is an improvement but, according to so many of the witnesses who testified before the special committee, it is not an improvement that is going to be as effective under war conditions in protecting human rights and liberties as they thought desirable.
The Prime Minister has always had a great interest in this matter, and far back in 1947 he advocated far more drastic action in respect of the War Measures Act than that which is included in this amendment. I am quoting the Prime Minister from a debate with which the committee will be quite familiar, because it has been referred to so many times in this discussion. It is the debate of May 16, 1947, and on page 3157 of Hansard the present Prime Minister is reported as saying:
I have a few suggestions to make. The first one is that this committee should consider the advisability of the repeal of the War Measures Act which has been on the statute books since 1914.
Then he said:
It was passed by the Sir Robert Borden government in 1914.
Mr. Ian Mackenzie said, when he intervened:
A very necessary act, too.


John George Diefenbaker: My right hon. friend says it was a very necessary act. It was necessary in the period of the war; but in the days of peace, with the challenge that the state is making to the rights of the individual. Professor Lower supports the stand that I take, namely, that the act should be repealed.
We on this side of the chamber do not go so far as the Prime Minister went at that time. But we do think that this amendment should be strengthened and made more effective for the purpose which we all have in mind. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin):
That subsection (5) of section 6 be deleted and that there be added the following section as section 6A:

"6A (1) Subject to subsection 2, any act or thing done or authorized or any order or regulation made under the authority of this act, shall be deemed not to be an abrogation, abridgement, or infringement of any right or freedom recognized by the Canadian bill of rights".
Then subsection (2)-and this is the amendment:
(2) No Canadian citizen may be deported from Canada under this act.
We know that in the not too distant past action has been taken under the War Measures Act which resulted in the deportation of Canadian citizens. I have said previously, and I do not mind repeating it, that I think it was unfortunate that that was done, and I hope in similar circumstances it would not be done again and this amendment would make it impossible to do it.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope that this amendment, which would prevent this kind of thing in any circumstances, the deportation or driving out of Canada of Canadian citizens, will commend itself to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the
Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that in 1947, among other things, I stated that I believed the time had come for the repeal of the War Measures Act. I remember very well holding that view and it received no support at that time, and that was within a year and a half after the United Nations had been set up at San Francisco. Canadians, as were free men all over the world, were of the opinion that the possibility of another war taking place was remote, if indeed such a possibility existed at all. We believed at that time that we had entered upon a new era where peace would become the universal way of mankind. Indeed, I am one of those who having heard Mr. Molotov at San Francisco in 1945 believed that that would indeed be the course which mankind would take. Events since have shown that the hopes of mankind have not been completely justified, and I think that statement is a major understatement.
I remember many years ago being in the gallery of the House of Commons-I cannot now place the year, and I have not Hansard before me

but I recall the late Ernest Lapointe saying that the War Measures Act was no longer in effect. He said it was still on the statute books but it was not in effect. My recollection is that at that time he, or someone else speaking during the course of the discussion in this regard, indicated that the law officers of the crown had given that opinion.
The War Measures Act is a measure which, of course, was adopted just prior to the outbreak of the second world war. It is well to

refer to the powers contained in that act. It authorized the governor in council:
-to do and authorize such acts and things and make from time to time such orders and regulations as he may by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada, and for greater certainty among other powers are-
And the powers mentioned include censorship, arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation, control of the harbours, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movement of vessels, transportation, trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture, appropriation, control, forfeiture and disposition of property and the use thereof. Then the rights of the individual are greatly diminished by section 5 which reads:
No person who is held for deportation under this act or under any regulation made thereunder or who is under arrest or detention as an alien enemy or upon suspicion that he is an alien enemy, or to prevent his departure from Canada shall be released on bail or otherwise discharged or tried without the consent of the Minister of Justice.
Those are wide and terrifying powers when considered in the light of the rights of free men. However, it has been recognized by all political parties that during the days of war the rights of the individual are placed in pawn, as it were, as security against the day of victory.
I had the opportunity during the days of war to serve on the defence committee set up on the defence of Canada regulations. It was a committee, as I recall, of some eight or nine members and it was one which gave those of us who were privileged to serve on it an opportunity of seeing the operation of the War Measures Act.
One recalls the internment of numbers of Canadians who in the light of subsequent events were as innocent of wrongdoing as any hon. member of this house. They were taken into custody. I am not going to mention names, but there is one outstanding Canadian of Italian origin who spent a considerable period in an internment camp and, who, upon examination of the record, including the confidential and secret record, by any fair-minded man should not have been interned. Indeed, upon the record as I saw it that man was as innocent as it is possible for anyone to be. But there was the finger of suspicion. Accepted was the chit chat and hearsay of others. Wrongs took place, justified though they were because of the exigencies of war.
The same condition of affairs applied in the United Kingdom under the defence of the realm regulations. Indeed, the record of two
Human Rights
world wars is replete with examples of injustices done to our fellow men, not intentionally but none the less actually.
What shall we do with regard to the War Measures Act? The Leader of the Opposition has mentioned that Canadians were subject to deportation. He said that those orders in council were passed under the War Measures Act. I think the original ones were and I speak subject to correction when I state that I believe the subsequent orders were passed under the Emergency Powers Act or under the Transitional Powers Act, whichever was the successor to the War Measures Act following the war. The effect was to go further than deportation. I have a copy of the original order in council in my hand dated December 15, 1945, P.C. 7356. It reads, in part, as follows:
Whereas by order in council P.C. 7355 of 15th December, 1945, provision is made for the deportation of persons who, during the course of the war, have requested to be removed or sent to an enemy country or otherwise manifested their sympathy with or support of the enemy powers and have by such actions shown themselves to be unfit for permanent residence in Canada;
Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council is pleased to order and doth hereby order as follows:
1. Any person who, being a British subject by naturalization under the Naturalization Act, chapter 138. R.S.C. 1927, is deported from Canada under the provisions of order in council P.C. 7355 of 15th December, 1945, shall, as and from the date upon which he leaves Canada in the course of such deportation, cease to be either a British subject or a Canadian national.
I am not going to go back over those days but certainly the only offence that many of these people committed was their colour. There was no evidence against them of wrongdoing that would have stood up for a moment in any court of law had they had the opportunity to appear in a court of law.
The War Measures Act either in its present form or, better still, in an amended form must remain in effect under the trying and dangerous times in which we live. We have behind us the experience of two world wars. I believe that this measure deserves the fullest study on the part of hon. members of parliament and at the earliest possible date. I suggest that while it has been in effect since 1914 the experience of two world wars justifies amendments being made which will not sacrifice security but will to the highest degree possible maintain the fundamental rights of the individual in Canada.
How to bring about that condition of affairs has tried the minds of thinkers throughout the years. I believe that if the house is agreeable we should at the next session set up a special committee representative of all parts of the house, not on a party basis whatever, for the purpose of giving the fullest consideration to this whole question

Human Rights
of maintaining security while at the same time assuring a maximum of freedom for the rights of the individual. If a committee is set up and, of course, I am in the hands of the house as always-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The right hon. gentleman has some influence.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank my hon. friend for those kind words. His geniality has brought about the recognition of a fact that he often denies.
This would be a most important contribution to the Canada of today and to the Canada of the future. At that time we would not deal as we are asked to now on a piecemeal basis with the rights under the War Measures Act. If there is a degree of unanimity, and I think there will be, that Canadian citizens should not be deported the committee might make that recommendation along with such other recommendations as will bring about a War Measures Act which on the one hand will maintain the solidarity and security of the state and on the other hand will have before it the paramount necessity of not needlessly sacrificing the rights of Canadians. I suggest, therefore, that particularizing one incident in the bill of rights would not be beneficial or helpful.
Many other things were done under the War Measures Act with which I will not deal in detail. It was sometimes used as a means whereby the executive could circumvent parliament and do those things that were unjustified, unreasonable and unconscionable. In short, I suggest this. We have by the amendment to clause 6, as suggested, assured parliamentary control which has not previously existed under the War Measures Act. We have provided that the particular clauses I referred to in general shall come into force only upon the issue of a proclamation; that this proclamation shall be laid before parliament forthwith after its issue or, if parliament is then not sitting, within the first 15 days next thereafter when parliament is sitting; and that where a proclamation has been laid before parliament a notice of motion in either house signed by 10 members thereof and made in accordance with the rules of that house within 10 days of the day the proclamation was laid before parliament, praying that the proclamation be revoked, shall be debated in that house at the first convenient opportunity.
In other words we do not intend to ask in this country again to be endowed with absolute power, power above the courts in most cases, without having the authority of parliament. That is of the essence of the parliamentary system. If the cabinet can proceed to bring into effect a system of absolute
IMr. Diefenbaker.]
power for itself, that of itself constitutes a dangerous probability for the rights of the individual. We suggest immediately that we shall reduce forthwith the power to make ourselves absolute as a cabinet if we are in power when war comes, which I hope will never come about. Whatever other government is in power then will have to come to parliament and ask the representatives of the people whether they will confirm the grant to the cabinet of absolute power.
Then as to the War Measures Act and the particulars as to the removal of needless powers, that is a question, as I see it, for consideration by itself. Personally I have felt, and I am unchanged in that view, that the War Measures Act deserves the most careful analysis to the end that any powers contained therein which, in the light of experience, ought not to be possessed, should be deleted from the act. Therefore, I believe that simply to take one of the absolute powers which all of us look back at today, which brought about the exile of Canadians without trial, without offence proved, not even suspicion as a basis for proof, and it could never be accepted as such, is not what we should do. We should not in a bill of rights specifically take one of the absolute powers away without having given the fullest consideration to all of the powers in the War Measures Act. After that has been done, then it will be early enough to single out one of the absolute powers to the exclusion of all others.
Under these circumstances, with feelings of antagonism against the operation of the War Measures Act as it is capable of being exercised and was exercised, I believe that our action should be taken on the whole act and therefore it would be unfortunate if we should now start to single out one of the items which we regard to have been a tyrannical exercise of power. We should rather cover the whole field and make an amendment to that act in consequence of the recommendations made by a representative committee at the next session.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, we have all listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks just made by the Prime Minister. As far as I am concerned, I can say that I listened with a great deal of appreciation of some of the aspects upon which he touched. Naturally, I am most interested in all phases and policies of this bill of rights, but I do have a particular interest in this clause, and I have not yet heard anything to make me change my opinion that the Leader of the Opposition has moved a most worth-while amendment. The new clause 6A(1) says:
(1)	Subject to subsection 2, any act or thing done or authorized or any order or regulation

made under the authority of this act, shall be deemed not to be an abrogation, abridgement, or infringement of any right or freedom recognized by the Canadian bill of rights.
(2)	No Canadian citizen may be deported from Canada under this act.
We in this group cannot help but remember the situation when Japan entered world war II. In Canada we had thousands of Canadian citizens of Japanese origin. Thousands of them were born in Canada; they did not know any other country but Canada and the principles espoused by Canada. And yet, under the act which was mentioned here, those who were citizens of Canada but not of our colour or racial origin were within 24 hours cut from their homes, from their houses, their businesses, their property and put in camps and then dispersed across Canada. At that time I had the honour of being the leader of the opposition in the province of British Columbia and I can still remember not one, but dozens of people representing hundreds of Japanese Canadians, citizens, coming to my office and pleading for the right to fight on behalf of Canada in any way that Canada wanted, in a combatant force, a labour battalion on any front, and yet they were denied.
Following the cessation of hostilities I was interested in checking as far as I could under security measures on what happened, and the answer was that there was not one solitary incident or instance of insubordination or of any act of sabotage by those Canadian citizens. At the same time we were the only voice that was raised on behalf of Canadian citizens, irrespective of their land of origin or of their colour. We were the only voice raised at that time which said that every Canadian citizen was entitled to a vote. How we were condemned and damned because we believed in Canadian citizenship and only one kind of citizenship. Today everyone has the vote. I noticed in the press only last week that the Conservative party has named a Japanese Canadian as a candidate in the next provincial election in British Columbia. How times do change.
In view of that episode, unfortunate as it was, we think and I have listened to the Prime Minister and I think he agrees with those views also-that there should be something in the bill of rights in time of peace or war which says that a Canadian citizen is a loyal Canadian citizen unless he is found guilty of betrayal or sabotage aginst the Dominion of Canada. I am not going to say any more. It is now six o'clock and I do not want to carry on afterward. It is for that reason that I find myself very sympathetic toward many of the words that the
Human Rights
Prime Minister has used and also most sympathetic toward the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do you want to go right through?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister in response to the suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition reminded us of the words of the late minister ot justice, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. I do not comment on that fact, except to observe that this morning the Prime Minister admonished me for quoting from observations made by one who is deceased.


John George Diefenbaker: That was right in Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would remind the Prime Minister that he quoted the words of a man who was likewise deceased.


John George Diefenbaker: That was right in Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That has nothing to do with the bill but it seems to me the sort of response-


Edmund Davie Fulton: One set of words is recorded and the other set was supposed to be a private conversation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now the Minister of Justice adds pearls of wisdom that do not really help the situation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad you recognize them for what they are.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister did not deny that he had urged at one time, not this particular amendment to the War Measures Act, but a much wider application in revision of the War Measures Act. One can only suspect it is because he is now sitting to Mr. Speaker's right, that he takes a position somewhat less liberal toward this act in relation to the question of a bill of rights than he formerly took. He suggests that next year we might have an opportunity of studying the War Measures Act in relation to the bill of rights and on its own account, and that at that time it would be more appropriate to consider the amendment offered by the Leader of the Opposition.

Human Rights
I must tell the Prime Minister that I find his attitude a little surprising, particularly in view of his well known views which, as he reminded us this morning, he has expressed often in the house and outside. It is difficult to reconcile these general observations with his suggestion that we postpone this amendment, which in any event I am sure would be agreed upon in any revision of the War Measures Act, until next year. It would seem to me that any examination of the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition will reveal that, revision or no revision, there would be general agreement in the house on this amendment which basically provides that no Canadian citizen may be deported from Canada under this act.
We are talking now of the Canadian citizen. We are not talking of any other individual in our country except a Canadian citizen, and we are saying that under the War Measures Act such a person should not be deported. We are not saying that the bill of rights should supersede the War Measures Act. We are all cognizant of the requirements of security in time of war, but we recognize this as a minimum kind of liberalization. It would seem to me that when we are discussing a bill of rights this minimum kind of liberalization should be contemporary with the passing of the bill of rights.
The Prime Minister, however, has refused to accept this on the grounds that there will be a complete revision later on. This we cannot accept, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that if he would read the evidence of Professor Lower, one of his great champions and admirers, he will find that on interrogation by me Professor Lower agreed with this amendment. It is true, that after I had interrogated Professor Lower in the committee, having to leave to come to the house to attend to my obligations here, because of the way in which the business of the house was managed, compelling us to move from the committee to the house, I was faced with the situation that did not allow me to deal with Professor Lower when he was being examined in my absence, not by a member of the committee, but by one who, in terms of interrogation, was there by courtesy, namely my friend the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice interrogated Professor Lower after I had gone-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not get a chance to get a word in edgeways while you were there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and it is an
indication of the flexibility of Professor Lower, that the Minister of Justice was able to elicit from the distinguished professor from Queen's University precisely opposite

answers to those which I had been able to elicit when the Minister of Justice remained quiet. But I must say that this flexibility was not contagious, because the Minister of Justice has not revealed any such ability until the very late hours of this afternoon, a flexibility which we all accept and recognize and for which we are grateful.
The Prime Minister gave us a dissertation on the problems of security. He told us about how important the War Measures Act was in the event of war. I am sure we appreciated this recital of the importance of the War Measures Act by the Prime Minister, but it seems to me that that recital was part of the Prime Minister's well known technique of diversion. It was not addressed to the amendment, and the Prime Minister at no time said that the amendment was an unacceptable one. The only argument he adduced was that it should not be accepted at this time because it was hoped that at the next session there would be an examination of the War Measures Act, when that act could be viewed in its totality.
The Prime Minister will not misunderstand me when I say that since 1957 we have had too many examples of this technique of postponement. I need only refer to the experience of the western liaison committee in the matter of postponement. We could easily be faced with a situation next session, if there is going to be one, that the Prime Minister would find some reason why the War Measures Act could not be discussed at that time. In any event, the fact is we are pressing this point under the War Measures Act that no Canadian citizen should be deported from Canada. One could easily put the question, where would one deport a Canadian citizen? No country would be obliged to take a Canadian citizen.


John George Diefenbaker: You did not find that difficult in 1946.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was the case in 1946 to which the Prime Minister refers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Japanese.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, I see now. I just had a heavy dinner, and I am not as quick as usual. All I can say is that the situation to which the Prime Minister directs my attention was one which elicited very strong support for the government of the day by the hon. gentleman sitting on the Prime Minister's right, the Minister of Justice, and the hon. gentleman seated on his left, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who said we did not go far enough.
The point is, are we, in a bill of rights, to say we are not going to accord to any Canadian citizen the limits [DOT] which are provided

by this amendment? The Prime Minister said that we must revise the War Measures Act next year or some time in the future. Then he went on to tell us about the revision which the government itself was making in the War Measures Act. If the argument is sound that we should not discuss now any revision of the War Measures Act, why was it not sound for the government itself to amend the War Measures Act in the bill of rights? The Prime Minister did not find it difficult to do, what we ourselves tried to do. He reminded us of the liberalization which he and his government is supposed to have effected in the amendment of the War Measures Act as provided in clause 6 of this bill.
I must say, that passing over this display of lack of consistency on the part of the right hon. gentleman, I cannot agree that the amendments which he has provided is substantial. What is that amendment? He says in clause 6 (2):
A proclamation declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists shall be laid before parliament forthwith after its issue, or, if parliament is then not sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
I will admit that is, in form, a liberalization. I will recognize that is an amendment to the War Measures Act. It is suggested that the amendment, which we have proposed should be postponed until the total revision takes place. However, a revision that the government makes is, of course, in an altogether different category. I submit the Prime Minister should not be too gleeful or enthusiastic about the amendment he has provided for in clause 6 (2) because it is really meaningless. The fact is that parliament, at any time under the existing War Measures Act, has the opportunity to discuss a proclamation declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists. This was never denied parliament, and was always a right that parliament had. If the Prime Minister thinks I am exaggerating when I make that statement, let me call as my witness no less a person than the Minister of Justice himself. At pages 584 and 585 of the committee evidence the Minister of Justice is reported as saying:
If you did that, of course, then the effect would be that it could be debated not only shortly after the proclamation, or alternatively, shortly after parliament met, but at any time thereafter This would happen if you cut that limitation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You remember I amended those remarks later.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says he amended that. I am not aware that he did amend those words, but it seems to me they are rather inconsequential and any amendment would be meaningless. However,
Human Rights
if he did I make note of it. What I am coming to now is the important part of what the minister said:
I would like to point out that from the point of view of an administration, the urgency of taking out the War Measures Act is, it is true, not as great as the urgency for bringing it into effect; but on the other hand, parliament could always debate it in any event, or discuss it in debate on the throne speech, on the estimates of the Department of National Defence, for instance, on supply motions, and by attacking the regulations tabled in the House of Commons under the War Measures Act as an encroachment of the provisions of the Regulations Act, and by various other methods. What we have thought important to ensure is that parliament should have the right to challenge the declaration of emergency itself in order that parliament should have the right to raise the question of whether it is not a false emergency brought in or created for the purpose of enabling the government to get around the bill of rights.
I was about to quote my own pearls of wisdom, but they do not add anything except to corroborate the generality involved in the statement of the Minister of Justice, which I find so helpful at this time. There need not be anything else said. The Prime Minister's argument has been discredited by his own Minister of Justice. He has indicated the inconsequential character of the amendment which the Prime Minister and his government have proposed in clause 6 (2), but in the very fact that they have proposed an amendment they have justified the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. As I say, this amendment involves the minimum kind of thing one would do in the liberalization of the War Measures Act, in an effort to give that measure of protection to the citizen which is consistent with security demands and with what is contained in the bill of rights.
The Prime Minister has not offered any substantial argument of which I could possibly conceive, that would stand in the way of the acceptance of this amendment. It is an amendment that would warm the heart of that great admirer of his, the author of the book "From Colony to Nation", Professor Lower, who spoke of the Prime Minister in most generous terms. If not for me, I hope that in the interests of satisfying Professor Lower the Prime Minister will accept this amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have those words from the hon. gentleman who paid Professor Lower such a high tribute, with which of course I entirely concur. Having had Professor Lower designated by the hon. gentleman as a worthy man whose suggestions and ideas should be followed, may I quote from the bottom of page 331 of the committee evidence:


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would you then agree with me that it is a sensible provision at the moment to put

Human Rights
this safeguard in against abuses of the powers of invoking the War Measures Act,-
That is the particular matter covered by clause 6.
-which will thus give you some protection against the abuse of powers conferred by the act; and then say we will look next at the act to see whether improvements should be made in the statute itself.
Professor Lower then stated:
Yes, I was under the impression, when I read this, that this is an attempt to make criticism of the War Measures Act. From what you say about it I can see you have something additional in mind. I would be very happy not only to have this retained but also to have the revision of the War Measures Act make subsequently. Of course, I do think it is too big a thing to be examined at this time of year.
So I entirely accept the designation of Professor Lower's capacity and ability, the evidence which he gave, and simply quote, in answer to the hon. gentleman, the words of Professor Lower.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I was struck by one remark in particular which the Prime Minister made when he spoke before the dinner hour. He used this expression which I jotted down: The executive can circumvent parliament if it desires-if it wishes. I do not know what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the executive can circumvent parliament. Surely the members of the house can be really concerned about the possibility that the executive, the cabinet, can circumvent parliament. If we look at clause 6, paragraph Cl) it states:
Sections 3, 4 and 5 shall come Into force only upon the issue of a proclamation of the governor in council declaring that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists.
Then paragraph (2) states:
A proclamation declaring that war, invastion or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists shall be laid before parliament forthwith after its issue, or, if parliament is then not sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
Strangely enough there is no precaution taken in this clause that parliament should promptly be convened. If the executive desires, for example, to wait for the full term of 12 months to expire from the last date that parliament sat it is conceivable that the executive could then run the country for 11 months; that is, if we suppose that the declaration of war was made one month after parliament prorogued. Perhaps there is something in that, that during these 11 months the executive will not be able to place before parliament the declaration of war so that parliament can discuss it, and perhaps that could be one of the ways in which parliament could be circumvented for at least 11 months.

I would therefore suggest, or invite the Prime Minister's consideration to this inclusion in paragraph (2), that if the declaration should be presented to parliament within 15 days next thereafter that parliament is sitting-those 15 days can be, as I said, 11 months hence-and I wonder whether it would not be wiser, or a greater precaution to safeguard our rights and deal with the emergency so that parliament can deal with it and not the executive alone, for the Prime Minister to include that parliament should be-I am not offering this as an amendment; but merely as a suggestion-convened say, within a month after the declaration, or within 15 days, depending upon the emergency.
I think in that way in times of emergency parliament can be certain that it will be convened to pass upon and to deal with a dangerous situation or a proclamation which the governor in council may have made. If we have that limitation, that parliament cannot just be circumvented during months at a time, I think the people of Canada, and parliament certainly, would be given the opportunity which it is entitled to have, and therefore perhaps eliminate a possibility that parliament might be circumvented by the executive.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On that point, Mr. Chairman, I would simply make the observation that I do not think the house itself would want to impose upon any government an obligation which, upon reflection, it realized that the government might very well not be able to discharge. If there should be a war-which, as the Prime Minister has said, everyone here hopes there will not be-of a nuclear or atomic nature, it simply might not be physically possible to call parliament within 15 days of the outbreak; everything might be in a state of complete physical chaos. We would have liked to put in some time within which parliament must be called; but we felt we could not do any better, because of that possibility, than leave in the provision of the British North America Act which imposes upon the government the constitutional responsibility of having a session at least once a year.
Amendment (Mr. Pearson) negatived: Yeas, 25; nays, 72.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister will perhaps be relieved to note that this is perhaps the last amendment on the operative part of the bill; but it is, on that account, not less in substance than any of the ones that have preceded it. I move,

seconded by the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets):
That subsection (5) of section 6 of clause 6 be deleted and that there be added the following
section as section 6A:
"6A (1) Subject to subsections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 any act or thing done or authorized or any order or regulation made under the authority of this act, shall be deemed not to be an abrogation, abridgement, or infringement of any right or freedom recognized by the Canadian bill of rights.
(2) No naturalized Canadian citizen may be deprived of his citizenship and no naturalized British subject may be deprived of his status as a British subject under this act.
(3)	No Canadian citizen or British subject may be detained under this act beyond a period of sixty days, unless the cause for his detention has been reviewed by an appropriate impartial tribunal which has reported to the minister or the authorities authorizing the detention.
(4) Any order or regulation under this act conferring authority to order the detention of any person shall, forthwith after it is made, be laid before parliament, or if parliament is not then sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
(5)	Where an order or regulation has been laid before parliament pursuant to subsection (4), a notice of motion in either house, signed by ten members thereof, and made in accordance with the rules of that house within ten days of the day the order or regulation was laid before parliament, praying that the order or regulation be revoked, shall be debated in that house at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in the house was made.
(6)	If either house of parliament resolve pursuant to a motion made under subsection (5) that the order or regulation be revoked, it shall cease to have effect, without prejudice, to the previous operation of the order or regulation, or anything duly done thereunder.
The observations which were made by the Leader of the Opposition in proposing the previous amendment, and my response to those of the Prime Minister when he commented on that amendment would, it seems to me, apply to this particular amendment which I recommend to the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In general the remarks made by the Prime Minister apply to this amendment, namely that what is sought to be done here is to suggest particular ways in which the War Measures Act should be amended. The Prime Minister has given an assurance that the War Measures Act will be placed under review at the first convenient opportunity, at which time all the features of that act will be reviewed by parliament or by a committee of parliament so that it may then be determined what it is that should be changed. I bring as a witness in support of the contention that that is the proper way in which to do it, Professor Lower himself, who agreed in reply to a question by me that the War Measures Act is much too big a subject to get into at this time of the year. In other words, Professor Lower was agreeing that when we are considering a bill of rights at
Human Rights
this stage and in this context it is not an appropriate time to consider amending the War Measures Act in particular but that that project should be left to the kind of examination which the Prime Minister has indicated will be undertaken.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The position of the government on this matter has been made quite clear. They are willing to put into the bill of rights their own amendment to the War Measures Act, and though we say this is some improvement it is a very inconsequential improvement, as was pointed out by nearly all the witnesses in the special committee. But when we move amendments which would put some teeth in the protection afforded, the government says it will defer consideration to some future time. We have to accept that decision of the government, but it is not a very impressive one.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me make this very clear. In so far as this is concerned, no naturalized Canadian may be deprived of his citizenship and no naturalized British subject may be deprived of his status as a British subject under this act, and we accept that as a desirable objective when full and complete amendment of the War Measures Act or other acts is made. If my memory serves me right, the last case of their being a deprivation of citizenship and also a deprivation of the status of British subject was under the order in council in 1945 and again in 1946. I am very glad that hon. gentlemen opposite in the light of the perspective of reconsideration now agree that the course then followed was a wrong one. That is all to the good. Furthermore, no Canadian citizen or British subject must be detained under this act beyond a period of 60 days unless the case for his detention has been reviewed by an appropriate impartial tribunal which has reported to the minister or the authority authorizing the detention. Nothing could have been more conducive to injustice than the regulations that were in effect during the last war whereby men were interned without any opportunity being given to them of understanding the charge against them, denied, as they were in 1946, the right to have counsel.
I am not bringing these things up in order to recall the past but simply to point out that we at that time took the strongest objection, and we are glad we are now joined by those opposite who in those days disregarded our warnings and our request for action in this connection. I can assure hon. gentlemen opposite that this is the type of thing that will not again happen in this country.
We do not want to precipitate, unconsidered, piecemeal consideration of the War Measures Act, and it is for that reason these particular

Human Rights
matters can best be dealt with in detail by a committee. Indeed, it has been made very clear by hon. gentlemen opposite that as a result of a committee which has met in connection with a bill of rights improvements have been brought forward, and I know that at the next session, if the house agrees to set up such a committee as I have proposed, we shall be able in co-operation and with a common dedication to remove and eradicate those things that bring shame to our hearts today as we think of some of the things that were done in the past.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister has now said that these are good amendments, that he approves of them and that at some time in the future they may be put into effect. The Prime Minister and his government have been considering this bill of rights now for two and a half years. They found time during those years to introduce one change in the War Measures Act and at some time in the future they will put into effect the other changes that are so good. Such is the process of procrastination.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to say briefly that this party, the only party in the house with a clear record and conscience on this question -nobody can deny that; I challenge anyone to question that statement right now-


An hon. Member:: Do you have a conscience?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As the only party with a clear record and conscience on this question we support the principle of this amendment. However, I am rather surprised to find such a distinguished colleague as the hon. member for Essex East writing an amendment in what I consider to be a somewhat loose form. On page 2 of the amendment I read, in lines 5 and 6 "four sitting days after the day the motion in the house was made". I always understood that a motion was moved and not made in this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. member for his editorial support. We all would have been very happy in the Liberal party if throughout the discussions at this stage of the debate we had had the active support of the hon. gentleman and his colleagues in connection with these substantive measures.
I regret that the Prime Minister, accepting the principle of this amendment, has not agreed to put it in the bill of rights. I should like to have seen this adopted not next year but today.
Amendment (Mr. Martin, Essex East) negatived: Yeas, 28; nays, 84.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On the preamble.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, 1 take it the only matter before the committee now is the preamble. The preamble which was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in spite of the criticism levelled at the idea is now before us. It represents a composite effort provided for by the law officers of the Department of Justice. We have no objection to the first paragraph which reads:
The parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;
Nor is there any objection to the second paragraph which reads:
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;
I will read the third paragraph so the committee will get the sense of it and then suggest to the Minister of Justice that the tenses in that paragraph are perhaps inaccurate. It reads:
And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a bill of rights which shall reflect the respect of parliament for the provisions of its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada;
I suggest to the minister that instead of saying, "shall reflect" a better way of employing the correct tense would be to say "reflects" leaving out "shall"; and, in the second last line, instead of saying "shall ensure" the correct usage would be "ensures". I believe that would be a more correct representation of the tense. I propose that simply by way of a suggestion.
However, I would formally move that in the twelfth line the word "provision" be deleted after the word "the" and that there be substituted therefor the word "limits". That would bring the English text into full conformity with the meaning as provided for in the French text which reads as follows: (Translation) :
And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a bill of rights which shall reflect the respect of parliament for the provisions of its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada:
(Text):
I formally move:
That the word "provisions" in the twelfth line be deleted and that there be substituted therefor the word "limits".


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on the proposals made by the hon. member for Essex East I am very glad indeed to have this opportunity of indicating a degree of flexibility which I am quite sure will surprise the hon. gentleman in view of some of the strictures

he has heaped upon me. I refer particularly to the question of the word "provisions" for which the hon. member suggests we substitute the word "limits".
I think the committee will be interested to know that when I first drafted the preamble which was submitted to the special committee and out of which this present agreed form came-and I drafted it on the basis of all the suggestions that had been made and then had a draft prepared in the department; I took that and prepared the final form in which it was submitted to the special committee- I had originally used the word "limits" instead of "provisions". Then, being flexible, I dicussed this with some hon. members and others who were interested and they suggested that possibly the word "limits" would be interpreted as meaning that parliament had enacted a limited bill of rights, that parliament had sort of shrunk a little bit and not enacted a broad and generous measure; so they said, not because of the technical sense of the word but because of the poetic implications or the implications in the sense of language, maybe it would not be desirable to use the word "limits" and it was suggested to me that we use the word "provisions" instead which would be unobjectionable from that point of view.
Desirous of demonstrating a degree of flexibility and readiness to accept all reasonable suggestions that come from anywhere as long as they did not destroy the effect and intent of the bill, I said "All right, we will take out 'limits' and put in 'provisions' ", and therefore when it was submitted to the special committee it contained the word "provisions".
The draft preamble as submitted was worked over. I would remind the committee and the hon. member for Essex East that in the form in which it now appears in this reprinted bill it was approved unanimously by the special committee. We now find the hon. member for Essex East suggesting with the most perfect sincerity and constructive thought that the word "provisions" should be deleted and the word "limits" substituted and also that the two "shalls" shall be taken out. Again I am desirous of demonstrating that degree of flexibility which the hon. member has suggested I do not always show. I am prepared to agree with his suggestion with regard to that particular word, but I think surely that by this complete 100 degree circle, if you like-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Circles have 360 degrees.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -I have succeeded in demonstrating for all time my readiness to be flexible and to accommodate the views of hon. members. Personally I have no strong feelings about whether the word "provisions"
Human Rights
or "limits" is used. Possibly the word "limits" is more precise; I think the word "provisions" is more poetic and in discussing whether a word should be poetic or not, again I think I indicated a degree of flexibility.
I think, Mr. Chairman, this is one of those problems where it should be left to the judgment of the committee. I would suggest there is no point in taking a firm stand as a representative of the government on whether it be "limits" or "provisions". I have some personal preference now for the word "provisions", for the reasons that first of all prevailed upon me to put in the word "provisions". In this respect I would suggest that it be left to the judgment of the committee of the whole house. The hon. member has moved a motion to substitute for the word "provisions" the word "limits". If that commends itself to the committee, I shall be perfectly happy. If, on the other hand, the judgment of the committee is that in the circumstances the word "provisions" is the better word, then again I think we shall all be perfectly happy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend second my motion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; I will not do that because I prefer to leave this to the judgment of the committee uninfluenced by my personal opinion as to what is the better word for the purpose that we are trying to achieve here.
But with regard to the elimination suggested by the hon. member of the two words "shall", here I know he has not moved an amendment, but I do have some fairly strong views. I think the word "shall" is more prospective; it brings attention more to what is to follow; it indicates that parliament now is desirous of doing this thing and parliament will do those things which shall reflect its respect of the provisions of its own constitutional authority and shall ensure protection of those rights and freedoms in Canada. Of course, although we have merely the future tense, or an expression of determination as to what shall be done, the bill itself still commences to be operative and effective from the moment that it is enacted. Therefore, there is no disadvantage from that point of view in having the words "shall" in the preamble. I think they are indicative of a conscientious determination on the part of parliament, and it is desirable that they should be in the preamble for that purpose.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I simply say with respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East, as far as the government is concerned, it is prepared to leave to the judgment of the committee whether the word "provisions" or the word "limits" is preferable.

Human Rights
With regard to the preamble as a whole, may I take advantage of this opportunity to say that it was the unanimous recommendation of the special committee that the preamble should be in this form. As we draw near to the close of our deliberations in committee I wish to say that I think the special committee, as well as the committee of the whole house, has produced a bill of rights for all Canadians which is as expressive as the House of Commons and parliament would desire it to be of those principles with respect to the basic rights and fundamental freedoms upon which our whole existence as a body politic depends, of which this parliament may be proud, for which I know this nation will be grateful to the Prime Minister for his continuous, conscientious and successful efforts to give to the Canadian nation a bill of rights upon which it will find a firm anchor for its democratic freedoms.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding that the discussion of this bill has from time to time been sharp-this is not an altogether undesirable feature when we concern ourselves with those things which go to the very warp and woof of our corporative existence as a nation; obviously, men feel keenly about these things, and members of parliament particularly feel most keenly about them-notwithstanding that there have occasionally been sharp differences of opinion expressed in the discussion in committee of the whole, I believe that the House of Commons can be proud, and every individual member of the House of Commons can be proud, of the part that this house has played in these discussions, and will I am certain pay a tribute to the Prime Minister and the government of which he is head for having provided the occasion for this discussion and will take a sense of pride and proper gratification, tempered with proper humility, in the achievement that this House of Commons has brought about.


Lionel Chevrier: May X draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice one matter which I think he may not have given attention to, namely that if the preamble, particularly the last paragraph which has been brought to the attention of the committee by the hon. member for Essex East, remains as it is in both texts, then the third paragraph in the French bill and the third paragraph in the English bill will have a different meaning. I do not think there is any doubt about that if you look at the words:
(Translation):
.. .in a bill of rights which shall reflect the respect of parliament for the provisions of its constitutional authority...

(Text) :
Which is translated as follows:
-a bill of rights which shall reflect the respect of parliament for the provisions of its constitutional authority-
These words, with all due respect, do not mean the same in the two bills.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question? I am not presuming to suggest that the question I am asking is a solution of the problem, but if the words "the provisions of" were left out, would that not cover the situation. It would then read:
*-which shall reflect the respect of parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure-
Would that not have the effect of achieving a solution of the difficulty mentioned by the hon. gentleman?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not like to answer no to that, but I would like to say this: the French version uses the word "limits" which is extremely important in the English translation. My understanding is that the translation has been from the French to the English.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Lionel Chevrier: Or vice versa. There is no doubt, whether it is from the one to the other, unless the word "limits" is put in the English text it will not have the same meaning as the French text, because the French text clearly states that it is the limits of the legislative competence of parliament which is emphasized. That is why I think the word "limits" should be substituted for the word "provisions".


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I follow up the Prime Minister's suggestion very briefly. The Prime Minister's suggestion is that we solve what might be a dilemma or an impasse by deleting from the English text "the provisions of" so that it would then read:
-the respect of parliament for its constitutional authority-
In the French text the same purpose may be achieved by deleting the three words "les limites de", so that the French version would then read:
-qui respecte la competence legislative du par-lement-
I think the same result would be achieved in both versions by the elimination of these three words and the impasse might therefore be resolved without the necessity of any division of opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are grateful to the Prime Minister for his efforts in trying to resolve what is recognized by all of us as a very desirable and important decision as we deal with this

matter in its final stage. To say "which shall reflect the respect of parliament for its constitutional authority" does not meet the point that we had in mind in putting in any reference to the constitutional authority. What we were seeking to establish was that there are certain matters that reside outside the competence of parliament, and if we simply say "respect of parliament for its constitutional authority" we do not thereby imply that there is a division of powers, and that is the very thing we want to do so as not to offend any provincial powers. I suggest that the idea the minister had originally of putting in the word "limits" as it is in the French is the most satisfactory way of concluding the problem. Otherwise we will not be achieving in the preamble the very thing which all of us in the committee sought, a recognition of the division of powers.


Norman Leonard Spencer: You have it in clause 5.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have it in clause 5.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is true, as the hon. member for Essex West says, that our amendment to clause 5 was accepted this afternoon, but what we want to do is to carry out the main principle of the bill, and to leave the matter in the way it was suggested would be to ignore the very thing about which all of us in the house and the provinces as well are sensitive. We are not interested in invading their powers under section 92 and have no intention of so doing. For that reason we recognize in this preamble that the respect of parliament is for those matters that are within our constitutional authority, and I think the word "limits" sets that out very adequately.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a brief word or two on behalf of this group before discussion of the bill is concluded. We support this measure wholeheartedly as a first and important step to protect fundamental rights and human freedoms in Canada. The other day we urged that the government take every advantage of the mood of the provinces at the present time to secure agreement between the provinces and the federal government for the inclusion of a bill of rights in our constitution.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, we are now discussing the preamble to the bill. I think it is a good preamble and I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate all those who worked on it and who produced this very comprehensive document. I do not know exactly who the authors of the preamble are but I believe that all members of the committee shared in the drafting, and they did a good job. Like others, Mr. Chairman, I tried my hand at drafting a preamble. I know that the Prime Minister read one
Human Rights
yesterday which was very moving in its terms. Even the hon. member for Essex East read his preamble, and it was also very good.
I did not succeed in submitting my preamble to the committee because I found as I worked on drafting it that I could not strike the right note. If I tried to be inspiring I found that I was perhaps too much so and certainly not legal enough. If I tried to be legal I found that I was legalistic to such an extent that I was far from inspiring. Be that as it may, if I may have the indulgence of members of the committee I should like to place before them my thoughts on the subject of a preamble. I am under no illusions whatsoever as to its literary merit and I also know that as a legal document it is hopelessly lacking. I probably got mixed up in all sorts of tenses and the hon. member for Essex East would surely have to move a whole series of new amendments.
However, I should like to place it before the committee as perhaps epitomizing in some sort of way the thoughts which came to me in thinking about this bill of rights which will very shortly, I hope, become the law of the land and perhaps also in some way a creed for Canadians. I beg the indulgence of the committee in putting this preamble before them:
Oh Canada, land of endless vistas, old as the rocks of time, yet fresh as the newest dawn, forged from the strange convulsions of the earth's bowels, vast, sprawling, sweeping spaces, rich and varied, offering hope and ever renewed promise.
Within these boundaries lives a diverse people, come from the many corners of the earth, of varied strains but together forming one nation, Canadians all, of whatever race, creed or colour.
They still remember ancient ties and fond attachments, but they have pledged to this country alone their mind and heart and soul. They have spread across an entire continent; freely have they taken of its bounty; joyously have they shared its precious heritage.
Country of dual culture and of many races, richly endowed, drawing strength from its very diversity, each element joining together to create a proud, independent and courageous people.
In freedom have men lived here, free to worship God in their own way, according to their conscience, free to express their opinions, to participate in public affairs, to propose changes in governments and laws, free to associate, free to lead their own lives according to their likings and to enjoy their property, restrained only by the rights of others and the general welfare, secure under a law founded on the supremacy of God and equal for all.
Freedom, true today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow, like a fine golden thread, is the link that binds together the fabrics of this nation, that makes it live and prosper.
When freedom was threatened, Canadians rose to meet the challenge and fought the wars on freedom's side. To this cause they gave their lives because they felt that life in bondage is no life at all. And, in the darkest days their hope never faltered because they knew that freedom can never be stamped out and that, inevitably it rises again, stronger than ever from the ashes of dictators.

Human Rights
But, when the wars were over, auickly they returned to their homes and families and to the pursuit of peaceful ends. Quickly also, they forgave their enemies for they know that all men are brothers.
Clearly do they proclaim that Canada is the land of the free, but they are mindful that freedom is never quite won and eternal vigilance is its price.
Appropriate indeed and useful it is that the fundamental liberties and basic freedoms of Canadians be hereby enshrined and consecrated in a bill of rights.
Thus does the parliament of Canada, pursuant to the sovereign will of its people, solemnly seal its imperishable pact with freedom.


Mr. Caron:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is it his intention to move this as an amendment?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think I explained very clearly at the outset of my remarks that I had no such intention, that it was not given as a preamble but simply as an expression of faith in Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Rouleau:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. member. In view of the importance of this new document, could the hon. member immediately translate what he has just read?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Does the hon. member want an immediate translation?


Guy Rouleau: Yes, if it is possible.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Well, I drafted that document in English, and I have attempted to translate it. In fact, I have a translation. However, I did not read my French version of the preamble because, having conceived and devised it in English, I found that the rhythm of the original English version is somewhat lacking in the French translation.
(Text):


Mr. Regier:: I only want to make a very brief observation at this time. I notice in the preamble the words "acknowledging the supremacy of God", and then I notice a little later on the words "affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law". I feel very sincerely that through the ages lawmakers, whether they have been dictators or parliamentarians, have always attempted to cloak themselves with the mantle of God. I feel that the two terms may very often be contradictory, to speak of the supremacy of God and, in the same breath, attempt to identify with that supremacy the rule of law. The course of history of mankind indicates that more often than not the rule of law has not been identical with the supremacy of God. I feel this is where mankind's efforts
to establish institutions of government have so very often broken down.
There is an old saying that when Rome became Christian, the Christian church became Rome. I feel that this point is as valid today as it ever has been. I do not like this identification of the rule of law with the supremacy of God because world history ought to have taught us a few things by now. I feel that in this respect our preamble to the bill of rights has really weakened the bill. I would have preferred no preamble to this attempt to identify the rule of law with the supremacy of God, because I feel that we ought to have learned a little better than that.


David James Walker: I know that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has different views on this subject, but let me assure him, on behalf of all other members of the house, that I think he stands alone on this subject.


Erhart Regier: World history teaches us differently.


David James Walker: However, regardless of that, we in this parliament do want to identify ourselves, and we do want to identify this bill of rights with God. We all feel that in this day of godlessness we in this nation should pride ourselves on our institutions and what they stand for, and in this instance should bring in the name of God. May I say, without any irreverence for the views expressed by the hon. member, that this is very important to us. We feel that this is one of our supreme efforts, in which all parties have joined, and we can do nothing better than couple it with God because we have found in the past, as my hon. friend must admit, that any country that has forsaken God has been very short-lived. We feel that this will be the fate of Russia and any other country that forsakes God.
May I say that I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Essex East concerning the contradiction in the interpretation of the word "provision" in French and in English. I do appreciate the suggestions that have been made that the word "limit" should be substituted because it means the same thing in French and in English. Looking at the Oxford dictionary we find that the word "limit" means this: the bounding line or the terminal point. Now, when you apply that to this situation, inserting the word "limit", it would not really mean what we have in mind. If we inserted those words, it would read:
And being desirous of enshrining these principles ...which shall reflect the respect of parliament for the bounding line or terminal points of its constitutional authority.

That is not what we mean at all. We mean that we are desirous of a bill of rights which shall reflect the respect of parliament for its constitutional authority, not just for the outside or extreme limits or bounding line or terminal points of the constitutional authority. If the word "limit" were inserted here as my hon. friends in the best of good faith suggest, I am respectfully suggesting we would be getting away from the principle of this bill of rights because it is not to express the limits of our constitutional authority but it is to express the respect of parliament for its constitutional authority.
My respectful submission, therefore, is that the suggestion of the Prime Minister should be accepted, namely, that the words "the provisions of" should be deleted so that the clause will now read:
And being desirous of enshrining these principles in a bill of rights... which shall reflect the respect of parliament for its constitutional authority-
Before I sit down may I say that I have been interested in this bill of rights for many years but I have not wanted to interfere in this debate which has gone so well. It has been carried on on our side by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. I could not help but reflect with joy, and with a certain amount of satisfaction, particularly when I saw the hon. member for Essex East, not only climb on the bandwagon but almost steal the bandwagon and attempt to ride away with it. It is true that even yesterday, when he was caught out in what I would not want to call plagiarism, but simply handing out the various parts of the universal bill of rights and saying, you take this clause, you take another; this wholesale plagiarism which took place yesterday and today at least indicated that everybody is interested; even if the thoughts of the opposition are not original but came from the United Nations. Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to see that they are thinking of this subject. They have made a great contribution and, to the hon. member for Essex East, may I say this: While the lamp holds out to burn, the vilest sinner may return.


Murdo William Martin: I rise at this time to protest the interpretation which the minister has placed on the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I might say that I have too much respect for the minister's intelligence to believe that this was accidental. This was another of the minister's attempts to smear hon. members in which the minister indulges far too often.


David James Walker: Perhaps my hon. friend would explain that.
Human Rights


Robert Hardy Small: I have listened to this debate patiently ever since the Prime Minister first announced on July 1 that the bill of rights would be introduced. I had not the slightest doubt what the result would be, and it was just a question of how long it would take to pass this bill through the house.
It ran through my mind on Dominion day that this would be a very memorable day; to look at it now in a different way it would be a day for a rehearsal. As long as I can remember, on certain days in the year I have been celebrating the benefits of the bill of rights. It was passed in December, 1689, and this was emphasized all the way through the debate. I have listened to the opposition efforts to scotch every particular item of the bill of rights with no effect. Never once did they mention the name of William III, Prince of Orange who made it possible for us to be here today to enjoy the supremacy of parliament.
I was at times a little annoyed while this debate was going on with the obvious stalling, but then I went down while the debate was continuing and read some of the history of the original bill of rights just to bring myself up to date. The passing of that bill of rights followed the same pattern but not in the same sequence as we have followed in this debate; the same procedure went on day after day until they arrived at a conclusion; just as we are doing now.
On that occasion each person put forward a particular right that he wanted put in the bill. They were going to bring in a statute that would make these rights law. They had the declaration of rights; but each of these rights had to be confirmed by a convention.
Each person had a particular grievance and a particular right that he wanted to have incorporated in the bill. They had to make a decision quickly, and they set up a committee to put it in concrete form. An individual who had not sat in the house before, by the name of Sommers, was made chairman of this committee. Within four hours he brought in the bill of rights, which was passed in no time.
The same procedure of reporting the bill then took place. They did not take long to pass the bill. Many of the things that have been discussed here today were advanced in the original bill of rights. What we have decided today is no different than what was decided in the original statute of 1689.
We have always marched behind the banner of William III, Prince of Orange, of equal rights to all and special privileges to none; civil and religious liberties. The same bill of rights of 1689 that accomplished so much in

Human Rights
the past for freedom in this dominion of ours will be carried on, and we can still march in the years ahead under the banner of William III, Prince of Orange. Through the years we in this country and other countries have enjoyed the emancipating principles he laid down, clinched and climaxed by blood in the battles of Aughrim, Inniskillen, Derry and the Boyne in 1690. This was followed by the American revolution and the revolution in France, for which he set the pattern.
We have had the advantage of these great principles in the Dominion of Canada and we will now with renewed ardour continue to march behind the emancipating banners of William, Prince of Orange, to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, who have made this possible with this Canadian bill of rights, for which I extend them my hearty congratulations and thanks in the name of freedom's cause. [DOT]


Charles Edward Rea: I would like to remind the committee that we are discussing the amendment.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Jacques Flynn: Does the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) wish to speak to the amendment.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, I wish to speak to the amendment.


Jacques Flynn: If it is about the amendment, I shall hear him; otherwise I must remind the hon. member that we must first dispose of that amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.
(Text):
Amendment (Mr. Martin, Essex East) negatived: Yeas, 30; nays, 84.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, in order to bring about the removal of the dilemma referred to by the hon. member for Laurier and the difficulty that will arise through the dissimilarity in the interpretation of the two official languages, I would like to suggest that we will be able to attain that objective by deleting the words, in the English text:
-the provisions of-
The preamble would then read:
And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a bill of rights which shall reflect the respect of parliament for its constitutional authority-
In the French text you can achieve the same result by the deletion of three words in the twelfth line:
-Ies limites de-

It will then read:
(Translation):
In a bill of rights which shall reflect the respect of parliament for its constitutional authority.
(Text):
We would then achieve, as I see it, the objective which the hon. member had in mind, without having the difficulties that would have arisen through the words "provisions" and "limite", because both words are difficult to translate into the other language. If the Minister of Justice would see fit to do so

I cannot move the amendment myself-I would appreciate it very much.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may, Mr. Chairman, before the Minister of Justice moves the amendment, I would like to draw this to the attention of the Prime Minister. The French text, as I understand it, has one clear meaning, and by eliminating the words that he has suggested my point is that he is weakening the French text.
I was attempting to show the difference between the two, and I would not want to see the French text weakened in any way. I fear that the suggestion of the elimination of these words "les limites de" will substantially restrict the meaning of that text. My feeling is that those words were put in there for a definite purpose, and I am afraid, with all respect to the Prime Minister and his desire to be helpful, that the words suggested will in fact weaken the meaning of the French text.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I could understand that argument if it were not for the fact that this afternoon we accepted the amendment to clause 5, which clearly denotes and determines that the legislative ambit is entirely restricted to those things within the federal jurisdiction.
The preamble was drafted before the amendment to clause 5, which was accepted, as I say, by this committee, and under the circumstances I can see no reason why there will be any misunderstanding. If there had been any doubt before, it was removed by the amendment this afternoon which reads:
That clause 5 be amended by adding thereto the following:
3. The provisions of Part 1 shall be considered as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
Following the discussion today we found it possible to arrive at an amendment which would ensure that by no possible interpretation or any other means could it be concluded other than that the bill of rights is exclusively limited to those matters within the federal authority. When the amendment was accepted this afternoon any difference

with regard to the interpretation of the provisions of this bill as might have existed was entirely removed, as I see it.


Harold Edward Winch: I have one question to ask about something which has puzzled me for a long time. Is it not possible on a matter of principle to reach an accord as between the English language and the French language? I think we lose a lot of time over misunderstandings as between what is in English and what is in French. Surely, as between French and English principles can be handled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am certain that that is so, and while I do not claim to be a French scholar I have consulted briefly with some of my colleagues from the province of Quebec and they assure me there will be no difficulty in understanding the words "qui respecte la competence legislative du parle-ment" which says, in other words, a declaration of rights that respects the legislative [DOT]competence of the parliament of Canada, and I have pleasure in moving, seconded by the hon. member for Three Rivers:
That the preamble be amended by deleting "the provisions of" where they appear in line 12 thereof.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had not intended to say any more on this bill, but having been associated with this matter, as many hon. members have, and knowing every detail of the preamble and the purposes and principles behind it, I must say I cannot accept this proposal. It seems to me that notwithstanding what we did in clause 5 today the situation has not been altered. If the hon. gentleman will recall, when I introduced the amendment to clause 5 I said that notwithstanding the limitations in the preamble of our powers under the constitution it was desirable to restate those limitations in the operative part of the bill for the reason I mentioned, namely the suggestion made by the minister that certain amendments put forward were outside the powers of parliament and that the governing restriction in the preamble did not in any way explain the limitation of powers. Now the preamble is intended to be a reflection of what this bill is, and I suggest to the government that whether they accept the word "limits" or not-I plead with them not to indicate in this preamble that there is no limit to the constitutional authority of this parliament in the matter of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
This bill will pass shortly. It may be the forerunner of a national bill. Let us not give to any province-and there is no reason why we should single out Quebec-the suggestion that we have incorporated in this bill, in its generalization in the preamble, an as-
Human Rights
sertion that there are no limits to the power of the federal parliament in these matters when the law of the land clearly establishes that there are.
This is not a matter of party politics. We have worked together co-operatively to produce a worth-while document. That, I think, parliament has done. Let us not mar that by seeking to take advantage one way or the other. I proposed a word which was not as satisfactory as the phrase "within its competence" but I proposed it because that was the word used in the French text, which gave notice to all and sundry that all we were doing was dealing with matters that came within the powers of parliament under section 91. To say in the preamble, "which shall reflect the respect of parliament for its constitutional authority" does not give notice that there is limitation upon that authority, which there is.
I ask the Minister of Justice in the interest of closing this particular matter with the unanimity that we want to see attached to it, if my word "limitations" is not acceptable let us put some word in that would clearly indicate that we are talking only of matters within our powers. That is the plea I make to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Justice. They can suggest words which will meet that point. I have no desire not to recognize them as the authors. I simply share with them the desire now to produce a preamble that is going to stand for all time. But let it stand for all time in a way which will not be a false declaration of the condition of affairs under our constitution as between the provinces and the federal government. I do not believe that is an unreasonable request to renew once more.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With the plea of the hon. member, or, rather, with the thought behind it there must, of course, be complete agreement but I suggest that in our anxiety to see in a draft preamble a positive statement of the limitation on our constitutional authority we did actually insert a phrase which is unnecessary and that is "for the provisions of", or "for the limits of" as the case may be. I agree, of course, it should be made clear both by the provisions of the bill itself and by the preamble that we are acting within the limits of our constitutional authority, but I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that there is no harm and much benefit to be derived from the deletion of these words which are not in conformity as between the English and French text, so the preamble would then read:
-a bill of rights which shall reflect the respect of parliament for its constitutional authority-
Surely it must be agreed that if parliament says we are going to enact a bill of rights

Human Rights
which shall respect our constitutional authority, that means that parliament does not intend and could not intend to go outside the limits of its national authority, because I have never heard any suggestion that the word "respect" means other than that you recognize what it is you are authorized to do. So if you say you are going to have a bill of rights which reflects your respect for your constitutional authority you are saying you are having a bill of rights in which you respect the limits in which you are free to act. We have therefore by the retention of those words made it clear that parliament does not intend to act with disrespect for its authority or with disregard for the limitation which the constitution itself imposes upon it.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) agreed to: Yeas, 88; nays, 29.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, before the
preamble carries I cannot do other than answer the remarks of the Minister of Public Works. I know him well enough to be willing to believe that the hon. gentleman honestly and completely misunderstood what I attempted to say previously. I did not attempt to complain about the acknowledgement of the supremacy of God. What I was complaining about was the inference that exists in the preamble whereby we identify the rule of law with the so-called supremacy of God.
The supremacy of God means many different things to many different Canadians. I believe the hon. gentleman completely misunderstood me in that respect. All authority throughout the ages has always attempted to clothe its authority with the so-called supremacy of God. While I do not advocate opposition to the rule of law I believe the rule of law is not always identical with the supremacy of God as various members of our society may understand that phrase.
I accept the rule of law. I have always attempted to obey the rule of the majority. But let us not be sanctimonious. For a member of the Conservative party and the Conservative government, which government and party have always been willing to worship the economic anarchy we now have, to worship at the altar of individual free enterprise and to take the hide off their fellow-man's back, to accuse a member of this group of belittling the principle of the supremacy of God is an expression of the worst order.
Even in our limited Canadian history there have been many Canadians who have had to suffer as a result of the rule of law which in their opinion was at variance with the supremacy of God as they happened to understand it at that time. I have only to refer to the following minorities in Canada who

in the course of our limited history have had to suffer because of the rule of law as opposed to the supremacy of God as they understood it:	the Doukhobors; Canadians of
Chinese origin who are among the latest victims; the Seventh-Day Adventists; Canadians of Japanese origin; the Mennonites; the Hutterites; the Mormons or members of the church of the Latter Day Saints as they are also known; the Baptists; the Jehovah Witnesses and the Hebrews of Canada. If I had enough time I might draw out from the annals of Canadian history many other minorities who have had to suffer because the rule of law had to prevail.
All I meant to do was warn against an important document as this undoubtedly is identifying the rule of law with the over-all rule of God because the two are not necessarily identical.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, I hesitated initially to speak with respect to this particular matter and certainly it is not my intention to launch into an extended debate or to in any way be contentious. However, during the discussions in the special committee at the time the preamble was being considered my friend the hon. member for Bellechasse and I discussed this question and delved into it in some detail to find out precisely where we stood in respect of the matter. Our researches led us to a United States authority, "Bouvier's Law Dictionary" which defines religion as the religion established by Jesus Christ. The explanation states in part:
Christianity is part of the law of the land.
It indicates that Christianity has been judicially declared to be part of the common law of a number of states in the United States and that this practice came from the English law. The explanation continues:
Christianity was pronounced to be part of the common law, in contradistinction to the ecclesiastical law-Christianity is part of the common law, as its root and branch, its majesty and pillar -as much a component part of that law as the government and maintenance of social order.
It is therefore my contention, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure my friend the hon. member for Bellechasse as well as other hon. members of the committee share this view, that we had no other alternative in adopting this particular preamble and accepting it as it is written, but not in the way the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has stated the case.
Preamble as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE 217. Departmental administration, $3,212,477.
Jacques Flynn: Department of National Defence, item No. 217; this item will be found on page 44 of the blue book and the details on page 290.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the rather plain language with which an old soldier will introduce the estimates for the Department of National Defence this evening will come somewhat as an anticlimax to the poetic language and heights of oratory with which the committee has been treated during the past two days by many learned members.
In introducing the estimates of my department I wish to point out that they have already undergone lengthy examination in the special committee on defence expenditures. The committee in its early meetings, of which there were eight, examined the expenditures of this department during the year 1958-59 and then in 16 subsequent meetings discussions were related to expenditures which are foreseen for the fiscal year 1960-61. I attended all but one of those meetings and I was given not only an opportunity to explain our policy and the steps which we are taking to implement our defence commitments but also individual members asked many questions relating both to detail and also to the defence policy in general.
At the beginning of our discussions of these estimates I made, with the approval of the committee, statements relating to our general defence policy and commitments to the United Nations, to NATO, to the defence of the North American continent and to the role the department plays in survival operations. Copies of these statements were subsequently printed in booklet form and were made available to all hon. members of the house. An additional booklet was also distributed giving information directly related to the 1960-61 estimates, and copies of this, too, were sent to all hon. members.
It is my opinion that these meetings of the committee were extremely useful and the detailed information which was supplied to the committee and the discussion which took place brought about a better understanding of the role that the three services and the defence research board are playing and of the problems that confront the department in this day of advanced technology and rapid changes in military strategy.
Supply-National Defence
In general, I think it is fair to say that the majority of the members of the committee were in favour of Canada continuing to play her part in the combined military forces of the west which contribute to the deterrent against aggression. This opinion was expressed in the report of the committee in which you find that the first recommendation made by that committee reads as follows, under the heading of NATO-NORAD:
The committee discussed at some length Canada's international defence commitments which are based on the principle of collective security. In particular, it heard evidence concerning the provision of naval, air and ground forces to NATO and air forces to NORAD, and the provision of forces to support the United Nations Organization in the maintenance of peace. Your committee supports these commitments as providing maximum security for the manpower and financial resources contributed.
Then the committee went on to recommend a continued emphasis on the standardization of equipment and the co-ordination of research and development within NATO. With that recommendation I heartily agree. We are endeavouring to assure standardization within NATO, but there are immense difficulties in the way. Each country wishes to provide its own particular type of weapon and each country wishes to support its own industry, a proportion of which is based upon the production of war equipment.
While the committee in general supported these commitments to which I have referred and will refer again, they quite naturally expressed differences of opinion as to how best to carry out the role that has been assigned to the defence forces, and also as to what equipment should be procured. But I think the consensus was that defence was necessary at the present time. Therefore, I wish to express my thanks to the committee, which was ably chaired by the hon. member from London. Members of that committee served faithfully, attending the meetings regularly and without fear expressed their opinions and asked questions. The committee has rendered a valuable work to this House of Commons and I feel that I would again like to express my thanks to all those who served and who helped to frame these various recommendations.
I should also like to assure the committee that these recommendations, of which there are 12 in number, will receive the most careful consideration, not only of my department but also of the government as a whole. Some of these recommendations I shall refer to again in detail in the course of my remarks. Many of them are far-reaching. The last three recommendations which deal with allowances to personnel overseas, design and development personnel and flying by
7522	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence senior officers are details of administration which I can assure the committee will be looked into most carefully.
In view, therefore, of the information which was supplied to the committee and which has also been made available to the members of the house, in continuing my remarks I am going to surmise that the committee is cognizant of the proceedings of the special committee, and with this in mind I shall endeavour to avoid unnecessary repetition, although to illustrate some of the points upon which I wish to lay emphasis I shall quote from time to time from the special committee's report.
Since world war II the great increase in the power of Soviet Russia has changed the very nature of our defence policy. Today there is no sharp line between peace and war; we live in a twilight zone and this is a new condition.
If you will think back to a few years agp you will realize that no one had ever heard of the expression "cold war". Now, in this twilight zone we are endeavouring to find ways by which we can avoid giving an answer to a choice between nuclear war and the end of our civilization or peace under a communist government. I believe ways can be found eventually which will not make it necessary for us to make that choice. I sincerely trust we shall never be forced into making a choice between those two terrible alternatives.
Diplomacy endeavours to solve these problems through such organizations as the United Nations and NATO, through ad hoc meetings such as the recent ill-fated summit conference and the Geneva disarmament conference and through personal visits of heads of states and foreign secretaries. As the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have said on more than one occasion, Canada is making every endeavour to bring about a lessening of international tensions and to find means of bringing about permanent disarmament. We pursue this quest relentlessly and sincerely hope that our endeavour will be ultimately successful, but recent international events indicate quite clearly that for the time being at least we must continue to maintain the required military strength.
The threat to our national security and, indeed, to the security of the free world is not only military. It is also political, economic and psychological, and to cope successfully with this total threat Canada must have a total strategy within which all elements, the military, the political, the economic and the psychological are closely co-ordinated and in proper balance. This government endeavours to achieve that aim.


The state of a nation's economy has always been a controlling factor in the size and shape of its armed forces. The actual amount of the defence appropriations is regulated by government policy. This is affected by many factors, for example, the actual economic state of the country and the apparent imminence or remoteness of the threat.
Two new factors have arisen in recent years which influence the relationship between finance and defence. In the past early defeats could later be overcome though the process may have been costly in lives, materiel and money. Today the result of a nuclear war will be decided by the forces which exist when the aggressor moves. Should our peacetime forces be inadequate or their armament out of date there will be no opportunity to retrieve the situation after the attack has taken place. The aggressor selects the time for the attack. We can only try to estimate, through the meagre intelligence that we can receive, as to when that time may be. It might be within a few months' time or it may be many years hence. Sometimes, because equipment cannot be obtained just when you want it, it is necessary to take a calculated risk, trusting upon the information that one may receive from various intelligence sources that an attack is not likely within a certain period.
The second major effect on the relationship between finance and defence is the length of time required to produce any new weapon. Therefore, before any new project can be undertaken it is necessary not only to obtain an appropriation for the current year but also commitments for three, four or more years in the future. Expenditures for new equipment are usually quite modest in the first year, perhaps nothing more than preparing the blueprints, but they pyramid very rapidly as production gets under way.
Again, within the last decade entirely new factors have entered into our defence policy and planning. The first is that the primary aim of our defence policy must be to prevent war, not to win a war but to prevent war, and thus the importance placed by the west on their deterrent power. In the past it has sometimes been politically desirable to avoid a war. Today nuclear weapons have created a situation in which the main if not the sole purpose of the armed forces is deterrence. To use our armed forces in action would mean, therefore, that the purpose for which we have kept them has failed.
The second factor is that of collective security. Experience during the past half century has proved that no one country can stand up alone against a powerful aggressor. In military matters Canada is quite incapable of providing everything that would

be necessary lor her defence. Having adopted the principle of collective security we should no longer think in terms of national defence alone but rather of the total defence capabilities of the alliances in which we have joined. We must, therefore, in order to sustain and strengthen these alliances contribute our fair share of the required forces. This I firmly believe Canada is doing not only to the satisfaction of her own conscience but to the satisfaction of our allies.
It is not to be expected that each partner in an alliance should contribute something to each component of the integrated force but rather that national characteristics, national geographic position and national resources should each be used to the best advantage, avoiding as far as possible duplication and overlapping of effort. We do not consider our defence effort in isolation but rather look at the general effectiveness of the alliances to which we are making contributions commensurate with our ability without placing an undue strain upon manpower and financial resources. While the cost of this insurance is heavy I think Canadians as a whole support the commitments we have undertaken.
The third factor is that our armed forces should always be in a much more advanced state of readiness than in the days before the last war. No longer can we rely upon the leisurely mobilization and training of a citizen force. If the armed forces are not ready when war breaks out there will be no opportunity to recover. Never before has it been possible for an aggressor to launch a completely devastating initial attack. There will be no more recovery from any future Dunkirk or any future Pearl Harbor.
These, therefore, are what I consider to be the three guiding principles of our defence policy, the deterrent, collective security and forces in being. They are not always understood, nor are their implementations easy to apply.
For the reasons which I have already given funds are again provided in these estimates to implement the commitments we have undertaken as a government. These are, as I think the committee knows, first of all the provision of naval, air and ground forces for the defence of the Canada-United States region, in other words the North American continent; second, the contribution to the collective defence and the deterrent forces of NATO in Europe and the North Atlantic area; third, the provision of forces to support the United Nations organization in maintaining its peaceful mission.
I should now like to quote from something I said in the committee in connection with this last commitment, that is the provision
79951-0-475
Supply-National Defence of forces to support the United Nations organization in maintaining its peaceful mission. I said in that committee that we maintain in Canada a specially equipped air transportable battalion ready to move anywhere in the world should the need arise. We do maintain that battalion, and that battalion is ready within 48 hours to commence to move to any part of the world. The personnel of the battalion are immunized against tropical and other diseases, and they are organized on a basis of being able to be air transportable, and all their equipment is of a light vehicle nature. The mere fact that they were not required in the present Congo crisis is certainly no reason why we should change our organization in that respect. Under other circumstances this battalion might very easily have been needed. We believe that by maintaining that force we are contributing to what may at some future day be a general international police force, organized and maintained by the United Nations organization. At the present time the United Nations organization has not laid' down to the various countries what their contribution to such an international police force could be, and for that reason, because there is no firm request under normal conditions for a definite unit we also maintain other regular forces in
TTanfd,a if .any further contribution to the United Nations effort is required to prevent the spread of any local war.
Certain personnel in the various corps, particularly the administrative corps, are also immunized against tropical diseases and are maintained at a high standard of readiness so that if the need comes and the United Nations asks for a contribution in any particular case, they are ready. There has been a clear example of that during the last week when a firm request was made from the United Nations organization for certain types of signal personnel and administrative personnel to be made available for the operation of United Nations forces in the Congo.
Then I went on to say in the committee that we attach importance to having forces in being so that they are readily available for these peace-preserving missions. We have announced recently the purchase of various forms of transport aircraft which will greatly increase our capabilities for various missions. I went on to mention the types, the CC-109, a long range transport known as the CC-106, and more recently the purchase of the C-130B, a heavy transport aircraft which can handle even the heaviest equipment in the army. These last named aircraft will not be delivered until later this year, but when we have these new aircraft we will be able to handle, with
7524	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence our own transport, any contingent which we are likely to be asked for by the United Nations to supply.
Under present circumstances we are operating with a limited number of North Stars which are available for transporting forces which are earmarked for the Congo, and also carrying out other normal duties which they have to do, such as supplying the Canadian forces in Indochina, in Palestine and on the Israeli-Egyptian border. They also, of course, maintain the brigade and air division in Europe. I should have said that they assist in the maintenance of the brigade and air division and the transfer of personnel.
Then, more recently, as was announced by the Prime Minister the other day, we have arranged to purchase four of the De Havil-land Caribou aircraft. We have been considering this move for some time, and then this emergency arose. The aircraft has been thoroughly tested and is a remarkable aircraft, unique in its characteristics. No other aircraft in the world is available now which can carry out the functions that the Caribou can. It is able to lift a load of three tons a distance of 500 miles with its ordinary fuel tanks. Larger fuel tanks can be added, which of course will-


Harold Edward Winch: The minister said 500 miles; did he not mean 5,000 miles?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, 500 miles with its ordinary fuel tanks, a load of three tons. It is capable of taking off with a full load in 500 feet. Now this is just the type of aircraft which will be required to supply the forces which we are sending to the Congo, and which may have to maintain signal links with the various brigade headquarters from the centre at Leopoldville. Many of the airfields in the Congo are in a deteriorating condition owing to the fact that it has not been possible to keep up their maintenance. So I think that gives the committee an idea of the state of readiness in which our forces are so that they may carry out the tasks which they may be asked to perform in support of the United Nations.
These commitments-that is, the defence of the North American continent, the contributions to NATO and the contributions we may make toward the peace-preserving efforts of the United Nations-are all aimed at preventing wars. The operations of the United Nations today in the Congo are aimed at that very purpose of preventing the outspreading of some local war.
The forces of the western nations, whether in NATO, in the United Nations police or


truce forces, or on the North American continent, are contributing to this over-all deterrent against military aggression. If I keep emphasizing the question of deterrent I do so because that is the main purpose of all our defence forces.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Jones):: I am
afraid I will have to interrupt the minister, because his time has expired.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask that the minister be given all the extended time he wants to make his presentation?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Randolph Pearkes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The success of the deterrent depends upon us. When I say "us" I refer to the members of NATO in particular, although it applies to all peace loving countries throughout the whole world. It depends, therefore, on the fact that we and the other peace loving countries are ready and prepared to resist any act of aggression whether it be a minor incursion or a full scale assault. Forces in being and fully trained are required to ensure that any would-be aggressor knows that immediate action will be taken at the first sign of any such attack.
As Canada's part toward the collective defence we have some 20,000 regular naval personnel, 47,000 army and 51,000 air force personnel. It should be emphasized that as long as we continue to meet our present commitments the strength of our regular forces must be maintained and, I think, at approximately their present strength.
I cannot see any possibility of material reductions in the size of our regular forces if we are to be able to maintain the commitments to which I have previously referred.
The Royal Canadian Navy has more ships at sea than ever before in peacetime. It requires men to man these ships. In its antisubmarine role the effectiveness of the navy has greatly increased with the entry into the service of the St. Laurent and Restigouche class of destroyer escort. Six further improved Restigouche-type escorts are now under construction. These ships are considered by naval authorities in the alliance as outstanding anti-submarine surface vessels. They would, of course, be complemented in the event of an emergency by the various other anti-submarine forces of our allies.
It is interesting to note that the standing committee gave consideration to this matter and reported under paragraph 12 of the report, that they had heard evidence as to the substantial submarine threat and the possibility that some submarines may be capable of mounting missile attacks against this continent. The committee noted that substantial

sums are provided in the estimates to improve the anti-submarine capability of the fleet and anti-submarine air arms of both the Royal Canadian Navy and the R.C.A.F. and stated:
Your committee recommends intensive study of the advantages of acquiring submarines for antisubmarine operations which could also meet the peacetime training requirements of the Royal Canadian Navy.
That study has been continuing for several months now and I hope it will be possible to make a firm recommendation in the not too distant future. In the meantime we do have the services of three Royal Navy submarines which are attached to the Atlantic fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy, and we have recently obtained on loan a submarine from the United States navy for training purposes on the Pacific coast.
Reference was made to the improvement of the anti-submarine capability and I would like to say in this respect that this committee will be interested to learn of the substantial progress that is being made in the improvement of the anti-submarine capability of the fleet through the development of a variable depth sonar at the Atlantic naval research establishment. This device permits sounding instruments to be towed submerged behind our anti-submarine vessels, thus increasing the ability of our ships to detect a submarine at much greater range than heretofore.
The variable depth sonars have been offered by Canada to our NATO allies and I understand arrangements are being made through the armament committee of NATO on a production sharing basis to equip vessels of some of our allies' fleets. H.M.C.S. Crescent is now equipped with the original set and it is expected that full production will start early next year.
The army has in my opinion four roles to fulfil: first, the commitment of a brigade group in Europe and the maintenance of sufficiently trained groups in Canada in order to rotate that brigade. With reference to the brigade, the committee, at resolution 14, reported as follows:
Your committee noted the Canadian brigade group in Europe had been provided with increased fire-power and that sufficient vehicles had been provided to transport all personnel of the brigade.
That was done last year by providing the brigade with wheeled vehicles capable of transporting all the personnel of that brigade. So the brigade may now be referred to as a motorized brigade. Quoting further from the committee report:
The 762 mm. rocket and its launcher-
That is generally known as the Honest John:
79951-0-475J
Supply-National Defence
-are being acquired and provision is made to complete the development of the Bobcat in the 1960-61 estimates.
The Bobcat is an amphibian, armoured, personnel carrier, having various designs which will enable it to carry different types of loads of personnel and their equipment. We expect the final report of the development stage this fall. I hope that if the develoment and the final report show that this is living up to expectations it will be possible to go into production next year.
The committee also recommended giving consideration to the provision of helicopters which would increase the mobility of the brigade. We have that matter under consideration and it is just a question of when funds are to be made available, because I believe that helicopters will certainly increase the effectiveness of that brigade. The committee supports this development to maintain and improve the brigade's mobility and recommend that if the development of the Bobcat is completely successful a decision be taken as soon as practicable with respect to the equipment of the brigade with these vehicles and these helicopters. No one is more anxious than I am to hear the result of the final development of these projects or to see the mobility of our brigade in Germany increase in that respect.
Now the second role that is assigned to the army is the contribution to UNEF, that is, the force on the Israeli-Egyptian border, and other United Nations missions such as Indochina, Palestine and so forth, and the maintenance of a stand-by force on call to meet any further United Nations request.
In connection with the latest request we have had, namely to send personnel to the Congo, I should like to call attention to the fact that Canada has already sent at very short notice 10 fully trained staff officers who are acting on the staff of the general commanding, and, as has already been mentioned in the house, high praise has been given to Colonel Berthiaume who is chief of staff of that force. These personnel are being sent into Africa, in a fever-stricken country where conditions of living are entirely different from those to which they have been accustomed on this continent. Innumerable diseases brought about by a large number of mosquitoes, flies and pests of all sorts are prevalent and therefore I think it would be entirely wrong for Canada to commit her young men to that theatre of operations without taking every care to protect them both by immunizing them against diseases such as cholera, yellow fever, and that sort of thing and also by providing them with the necessary types of clothing so that they will
752$	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-National Defence be able to exist in that country instead of becoming casualties.
The third role given to the army is to maintain a force capable of taking action against any possible commando-type raid in the Arctic or elsewhere in Canada. We have three brigade groups stationed across Canada, one in Quebec and' the Atlantic provinces, one in central Canada and one in western Canada. In each of these brigade groups certain personnel are trained to be airborne- and to have experience in living and operating in the Arctic.
The fourth role about which I shall have more to say later is that of having the necessary trained personnel to assist in survival operations in the event that the deterrent to aggression fails. The Royal Canadian Air Force also has important commitments both on this continent and in Europe. As well as maintaining an air lift operation in support of the United Nations, in Europe the first Canadian air division is part of the fourth allied tactical air force. At the request of NATO the government decided to re-equip the eight squadrons now armed with F-86 Sabre aircraft with an aircraft capable of carrying out a strike reconnaissance role. That was the role assigned to our division by the supreme allied commander in Europe.
I do not think the term "strike reconnaissance" is a very good term. It does not really indicate the particular role that our forces have to play. Reconnaissance, yes. They are equipped for carrying out short range reconnaissance. This is not to be interpreted in any way as carrying out what are frequently referred to as spy missions. We have no aircraft capable of carrying out missions of that sort. This is reconnaissance of troops in operation, reconnaissance of the enemy's forces once an attack has started.
So, also, the strike element is far more in the nature of a counter-bombardment element, that is, the enemy has moved, the enemy is carrying out acts of aggression, he is invading part of the NATO territory. Our aircraft would then be employed in order to engage targets of opportunity and centres where communications meet and other targets of a practical nature rather than of a strategic nature as they present themselves. The range of these aircraft is quite limited and they are in every sense a defensive type of aircraft employed in counter-offensive roles. The aircraft selected for this work is the CF-104 which is now being built by Canadair. Much consideration was given before this particular type of aircraft was decided upon, and after we had made that decision I am happy to be able to say that several other NATO countries adopted this

aircraft and are employing it, some of them in air defence roles, other in the strike reconnaissance role that has been given to our forces.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister would indicate what other countries are using this aircraft in the reconnaissance role.


George Randolph Pearkes: Germany, Belgium, the
Netherlands, to begin with-I am not certain about Italy-


Mr. O'Hurley:: Yes and Italy.


George Randolph Pearkes: So much for the air division. On this continent our air force is responsible for the operation and control of the D.E.W. line stations in Canada, the maintenance of the mid-Canada line and the joint maintenance and operation of the Pinetree radar system. Nine squadrons of the CF-100 interceptor aircraft are presently stationed across Canada, complementing United States interceptors and ground to air missiles as a joint defence against the manned bomber.
As has been stated on numerous occasions, the CF-100 will have to be phased out by 1962 as an operational unit. The aircraft has been in operation now for a number of years and is reaching the obsolescent stage. During the discussions in the committee I had the following to say regarding the replacement of this aircraft, and I do not think I can do better than to read what I said there:
At present the CF-100 all-weather fighter is the Canadian contribution to the manned interceptor forces in NORAD. Of the nine squadrons equipped with these aircraft two squadrons each are located at St. Hubert, Ottawa, Bagotville, North Bay and one at Comox. While it is realized that the period of effectiveness of the CF-100 is limited, ho decision with regard to its replacement has been reached yet. However, the R.C.A.F. has investigated various types of aircraft which might be considered should it be decided to re-equip the squadrons in Canada. The realization that such a decision would involve serious financial implications and the knowledge that there are already a considerable number of interceptors in the North American defence complex, coupled with the changing nature of the threat, requires the most careful consideration before a final decision can be reached. There might be some tactical advantage in introducing a more up-to-date interceptor in our Canadian squadrons at this time but whether such a requirement can be given a high enough priority to justify the considerable expense involved is a matter not yet resolved.
The air defence plan for the whole of the North American continent calls for various types of weapons including both manned interceptors and surface to air missiles. But, as I have said before, it may not be necessary for Canada to contribute to all facets of air defence.
The committee recommended that a decision on this matter should be made as soon as possible. I believe I can assure this committee that a decision will be made in the very near future. We have collected a great

deal of material on this subject and I hope we will be able to make a decision very shortly.
The integration of R.C.A.F. personnel into the command and staff structure of NORAD headquarters and at some joint regional and sector headquarters continues. We are really establishing a unified or integrated command between the R.C.A.F. and the United States air force on this continent.
The Royal Canadian Air Force transport command maintains a large fleet of aircraft, as I have said, for the supply and air lifting of service personnel. Air transport command is looking forward to the introduction later this year of its new aircraft, the CC-106's, the CC-109 and the C-130B. In addition, aircraft of the maritime command work in close co-operation with the Royal Canadian Navy anti-submarine forces. The R.C.A.F. also carries out its national and international obligations in search and rescue operations. In connection with the latter in the past year the air force was called upon to organize searches for 36 lost aircraft. In every case the missing aircraft was found and the survivors were rescued from the crash sites. Apart from search operations more than 160 mercy flights were performed to evacuate sick and injured persons to medical facilities.
The air force also maintains a small air support unit for the United Nations emergency force in Egypt. Hon. members will be aware that in recent months R.C.A.F. transport aircraft have played a vital role in various mercy missions and United Nations undertakings.
In March when a severe earthquake struck the city of Agadir in Morocco, North Star aircraft of air transport command flew 6,647 pounds of medical supplies and medical personnel as a Canadian contribution to the distressed people of the area. In May when a series of earthquakes ravished areas of Chile, five North Stars of transport command flew 25 tons of food, shelters and medical supplies and two Canadian army field hospitals to the areas as a Canadian government gift to the Chilean people. These aircraft subsequently remained in Chile and provided 18 shuttle flights between Santiago and various Chilean points transporting evacuees and supplies.
Four North Star aircraft of the R.C.A.F. air transport command have just recently been engaged in flying food totalling 42,000 pounds from Canada to the Belgian Congo. These aircraft were then made available to the United Nations to transport from Pisa,
Supply-National Defence Italy to Leopoldville. Only today it has been announced in the press that Group Captain Carr of the 412th squadron and a team of staff officers have been sent to the Congo where they are organizing the entire transport command of the United Nations force there. These are all young offlcers who have had considerable experience. They have been trained for this particular task and their ability is recognized by the United Nations who have asked for these personnel.
Closer to home, six R.C.A.F. transport aircraft, together with civilian air lines and private companies, combined in the emergency evacuation of women and children from Gagnon, Quebec when a forest fire threatened to get out of control and envelop the town in May of this year. Only at the end of last week a request came from British Columbia for help in connection with the many fires which are raging in that province. We were able to send helicopters and aircraft which rescued some of the firefighters just in the nick of time. They have carried out invaluable work in reconnaissance of the areas which are now being burned and in transporting personnel. That broadly, I think, illustrates the general disposition of our service personnel. Many of these moves were undertaken at very short notice and the personnel were on their way in a matter of a few hours. I believe that indicates that there is really not the confusion and muddling in the Department of National Defence which has sometimes been suggested exists.
I should like to mention various commands under which the forces served. As I said before, the deterrent consists of sea and land forces with the required ground and air support in Europe plus the retaliatory forces consisting in the main of the aircraft and missiles of the United States strategic air command. These two forces complement each other. It has been suggested-I think quite incorrectly-that since the main deterrent is massive retaliation and since Canada does not contribute directly to this retaliation, we should withdraw our forces from NATO and seek for the dissolution of NORAD.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt to say that since it is now six minutes to eleven and the minister is launching on what I believe is a major policy statement, would the minister care to call it eleven o'clock?


George Randolph Pearkes: Just as the committee wishes: I am afraid I cannot finish in the course of five minutes.

Supply-National Defence


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister give us any indication of how long he would require? If it is not too long, the committee might give him a few extra minutes.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am afraid it would take some considerable time, more than half an hour at least.


Harold Edward Winch: I think it would be better if the minister made his statement without a break, and I suggest that we call it eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader what we shall be doing tomorrow?


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, I think we can start off tomorrow with the third reading of Bill No. C-79, for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Since the only other legislative item on the order paper is Bill No. C-89, to amend the Judges Act, we might follow with that, and then continue with the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, August 4, 1960